| Read my Dreambook! Sign my Dreambook! |  |
Leafing through the pages of the May 1961 issue of National Geographic magazine, the average person would be moved by the whimsical photograph on page 729 depicting a hero awaiting his momentous journey. After glimpsing his wrinkled face, disheveled hair and huge chocolate brown eyes staring back from the page, one would hardly guess that this was the image of the individual about the embark on an epochal �Rocket Ride into the Unknown�. For the wide-eyed Ham lying harnessed to his �space couch�, the device that would safely restrain him in flight, undoubtedly conveys an impression of candid innocence and roguish sense of charm, even without speaking a word. Observing his remarkable nonchalance as he patiently awaits being launched into space, it is easy to forget or disregard the idea of the tumult of extreme conditions before him, and his composure warrants the question of whether he is even aware of what is going on, despite the wrinkles of seeming wisdom creasing his brow. Likewise, in his tolerance and noble acceptance of such a gallant task with but a proud and mischievous grin, it is easy to forget that Ham is not human, but that he is a chimpanzee.
Introduction
Ever since its divergence from ape ancestry millions of years ago, the human species has undoubtedly placed itself at the topmost rung on the evolutionary ladder of the natural world. What sets humans apart from their cousins of the tropical forests and African savannas is seen by some as an enormous leap in cognitive capability, one that resulted in verbal language, complex cultural systems, production and use of tools of utmost ingenuity to name only a few traits possessed exclusively by the human species. While this exceptionally advanced cognitive capacity is generally accepted as being unrivaled by any other species, an equally astonishing (however much less known) fact on this subject is the unbelievably great amount of similarity we share with our great ape cousins: an average between the orangutans, chimpanzees and gorillas of 99% of our DNA (Galdikas, 25). This fact may be surprising to many, especially considering that studies on other primate species have revealed greater or comparable differences in DNA, despite the possession of almost identical behavioral and morphological traits resultant of closely related ancestry. Remarkably, DNA comparison between chimpanzees and orangutans, both members of the pongid family shows less than 96% similarity in genetic information (Galdikas, 25). Many scientists would agree that the fact that humans are more closely related to apes than some members of the ape family are to each other evades most peoples� knowledge by no accident. Somewhere, in the course of the countless behavioral and physiological adaptations throughout the evolutionary history of humankind, human beings also evolved the awareness of self as superior over all other organisms, a characteristic which led to animal exploitation.
The evidence for the exploitation of animals by humans cannot be disputed. Since the onset of formative society, when humans abandoned hunting and gathering for more sedentary lifestyles as agriculturists, humans have employed their highly developed brains to facilitate their needs. In the present, humans still depend on domesticated animals for subsistence purposes. Animals are domesticated as pets and are rendered dependent on their human owners. The advantages supplied by human-animal genetic similarities are maximized in the field of medical research. As with Ham, the �chimponaut�, such similarities have been used to test spaceships for safety before human astronauts pilot them. In bringing to light these various examples, the line between essential animal exploitation and unnecessary animal exploitation is apt to become blurred. Questions inevitably arise as to the utilization of animals as a resource by modern humans including one addressing the extent of natural selection�s role in the existence of the human behavior of using animals. Another pressing question which may be posed: can the demise of apes and other animals affected by humans be attributed to �survival of the fittest�? Or has humankind advanced so far beyond their �natural� state that the natural setting in which this process operates has been altered and no longer applies? If these questions are to be answered and the line between necessity and superfluity brought into focus, ultimately the need of the human species will have to be assessed and set apart from its greedy and superfluous behaviors, whether or not any reversibility from the latter is possible. While the debate of animal exploitation often lies in the hands of radical animal rights activists, it is one that has been unduly neglected in the academic realm, for it involves the question of the condition of humankind and equally, the future of humankind. For the purpose of this paper, the subject of ape exploitation and conservation will be discussed as a narrowly focussed example of the exploitation of our closest animal relatives, the great apes, the social and ethical adaptations of humankind that allow it to occur as well as the ramifications of its continuation or stoppage.
Ape exploitation
It does not take a well-trained professional in the field of biology or primatology to recognize the striking resemblance between a non-human primate and a human, especially when the primate is a great ape. While one would never see a chimpanzee dressed in a business suit on his or her way to work, when staring a great ape in the face, the close and often uncanny similarities in both behavior and morphology cannot be ignored. One has simply to compare the behavior of an infant orangutan at play with that of a human toddler to realize the strikingly similar thought processes in action (Morris, 217). It would be a mistake, however to consider such ape-human homology as superficial or merely analogous, being the result of independent adaptation to similar selective pressures. The many shared characteristics are unquestionably the result of a long evolutionary history that once saw apes and humans unified under a common family, stemming from a common ancestor. Across many varying cultures, this obvious kinship between humans and apes has resulted in the consecration of apes and monkeys, taking into account their exceptional intelligence and often placing them on a higher level than other animals (Morris, 11). While this respect for apes in some cultures has resulted in the exception of these animals from contributing to food sources or other constituents of subsistence in some people, the great apes have by no means been absolved of exploitation. Moreover, the similarities between apes and humans have proven extremely valuable to modern humans and scientists. It is for this reason that apes and other non-human primates have become perhaps the most widely exploited animals, being used in many domains, as test subjects, as pets and as performers.
Undoubtedly because of their great cognitive capability akin to that of humans, apes have not only been used in medical research, but also psychological and biological research to provide considerable information on human behavior, without the researcher having to employ an actual human test subject. Also, the use of apes as �the next best thing� has proven beneficial to scientific experimentation where the use of humans as test subjects would pose ethical or moral obstacles before the researcher. In the case of the NASA space project, chimponauts such as Ham, a three year old male chimpanzee, underwent extensive training before being launched into space in United States space rockets. Since space travel was still an little known frontier in the early sixties, at the time this experimentation was carried out, conditions similar to those posed by space travel needed to be proven tolerable by humans. After subjecting captured wild chimpanzees to training sessions in which they were taught to pull levers in response to flashing lights and become accustomed to conditions of isolation, weightlessness and accelerations through simulations, the scientists expected to gauge the performance of subsequent human astronauts based on how the chimpanzees reacted to the conditions (Crane, 725). Some of the chimpanzees were then secured in rockets and launched into space, their reaction and responsiveness under the conditions monitored by a video camera strapped in front of them. As stated by Crane, �[Ham] showed remarkable aplomb. As long as his red light was on, he banged away at the right-hand lever. At no time did he miss the 20-second deadline that would have brought him a mild electric shock. And when the blue light flashed on, he always turned it off with his left-hand lever within the allotted five seconds. . .�
The impressive performance displayed by Ham an the other chimponauts provided the researchers with little doubt that the mentally and physically fit human astronauts would have no problem carrying out the tasks required of them while in space. Clearly, the experiments using the chimpanzees as models of human behavior and physiology proved indispensable to humankind�s technological and intellectual advances that launched it into space.
In recognizing the great benefit provided by this example of experimentation using apes, many people would be overcome with sympathy for the group of chimpanzees who were taken out of their African savanna homes and subjected to such harsh conditions for the good of human space exploration, a cause of seeming futility to them and their species alike. The repetitious tests and exercises the chimpanzees were forced to carry out before being sent into space may seem to some people as cruel or inhumane, and in human terms would readily be considered as such. According to human ethics, that which is inhumane inflicts unnecessary pain or distress on an individual and deprives them of their rights (Fox, 155). The tiresome excursus, electric shocks and extremely high gravitational forces that the chimpanzees were subject to throughout the experiments are indisputable evidence for the infliction of pain and distress on the apes, to which the image of a tight-jawed Ham in a rocket sustaining 17 times the force of gravity will attest. But what of their rights? While the rights of animals are often taken to extremes by radical activists, most people willingly acknowledge simple animal privileges, such as the right to live in undisturbed in a natural habitat. This right, whether established in society or not, was undoubtedly violated through this experiment, when � culled to meet stiff requirements or intelligence, personality, weight and age�, the chimpanzees were captured in Africa and brought to the Holloman Aeromedical Laboratory in New Mexico (Crane, 725).
Given the fact that this treatment would clearly be morally and ethically unacceptable if carried out on humans, what great difference allows for it to occur on apes, our closest relatives or other animals for that matter? Often, the defense for animal testing adopts the reasoning that �animals cannot speak, they cannot think, therefore they cannot suffer� (Fox, 161). In that the feeling of suffering has yet to be identified as being linked to a single �suffer-gene�, the 1% permutation in DNA between humans and chimpanzees is highly unlikely to account for any kind of invulnerability to distress among chimpanzees and other apes.
Another commonly upheld conception justifying the exploitation of apes and other animals is one that recognizes the benefit of a huge population of individuals through the exploitation of only a few subjects to outweigh the downfalls. When asked for his opinion on the exploitation of apes in research, a university student responded, �put into perspective, it is really only a few [apes] being sacrificed out of millions for a much greater good�. What this statement clearly reflects is that this �perspective� he talks about and the one through which most humans view the world is based on a kind of homocentric attitude (Pluhar, 10), one that sees �greater good� as simply that which benefits humankind as opposed to the natural world as a whole. Perhaps the weakest element of this argument lies in the fact that, based on sheer comparative population sizes, humans are clearly the more expendable species, having numbers exponentially greater than those of the three great ape species combined. In the case of mountain gorillas, recent populations were estimated at less than 600 individuals, yet hunting of gorillas by humans has taken place in recent times. Likewise, in Borneo, jungle habitat is constantly threatened by logging and slash and burn agriculture and the dwindling orangutan populations themselves are exploited directly when taken into captivity as pets by Indonesians (Galdikas, 127). Conceivably under humankind�s homocentric stigma, the sacrifice of �only a few� humans for experimentation can be seen as unacceptable under any circumstance in that, with their dominant trait allowing for verbal language, the pain and displeasure endured by such exploitation would be voiced, making it much more difficult to ignore than that of our ape cousins.
The Issue of Human Need
In considering the present state of modern human society, Taylor�s view on human �vital needs� seems reasonable in that it encompasses, �those factors essential not just for survival but for physical and psychological well-being� (Taylor, 250). Throughout the history of humankind, food, clothing and shelter have been necessities in sustaining human life and the exploitation of animal resources has been indispensable in this activity. However, as human culture developed and grew in complexity, further needs arose as did opportunities for improved physical and psychological well-being, that is to say living better and not simply surviving, again at the expense of the rest of the natural world. In today�s society it is fairly easy to distinguish the actions taken by humans for basic survival from those intended to promote well-being or a vigorous lifestyle. Often, this dichotomy can be seen in the difference between immediate-effect or preventative action, for example feeding one�s self and taking medication to prevent illness, promoting a more pleasant lifestyle. While the divide between those actions that keep an individual alive and those which may make life easier is fairly clear, the definition of that of which humans are ultimately in need is not. In acknowledging the fact that uniquely for humans, the goal of the individual and the species is not merely to survive but rather, to lead a fulfilling or at least a bearable life, one must also acknowledge that what constitutes human need may not be the same as that of every other animal. Crucial to the identification of unnecessary and detrimental exploitation of apes is the definition of that which is essential for humankind to fulfill its goals as a species.
When analyzed in evolutionary terms, the increased and more elaborate exploitation of animals by humans may be considered an adaptation resulting from higher cognitive capability, with the goal of bettering their survival, hence with increased probability of passing on their genes. Likewise, the demise of other animals at the hands of humanity may also be seen as an example of Darwin�s �survival of the fittest� in which propagation of genes is guaranteed only to those individuals who demonstrate behavioral or morphological adaptations which allow them to cope with their environment. To say that exploited animals are ill-equipped for survival may be a valid argument only up to a certain point in human evolution, however. It may be argued that at the point where humans developed the ability to reason as part of an adaptive package, the responsibility to utilize their advanced capability towards preservation of the natural environment also arose. With the privilege of enlightenment, came the duty of a kind of stewardship, whether of not humans recognize it today.
The adaptive �edge� acquired by the human species through highly complex mental capability is usually seen to have provided humans with the skills needed to exploit and manipulate their environment with great ease and efficiency. It can be disputed, however that the greater advantage acquired by humans was the ability to plan and foresee the immediate and long-term consequences of their actions. In realizing the irreversible effects of over-hunting, for example, a human can be said to be gifted with the ability to decide on an alternative course of action, balancing his immediate need with the negative long-term effects of over-exploitation. Despite this unique wisdom, in many cases, the human species can be seen to ignore the advantage it offers, both at the detriment of self and of other species. Some people may dispute the necessity of space travel to humans and find the sacrifice of other animals in the name of scientific research insupportable, especially when the populations of the subjects being used are low, as may become the case with chimpanzees if appropriate measures are not taken. Perhaps the most detrimental factor, however, posing the gravest consequences in the long-term, is humankind�s blindly homocentric attitude, which does not recognize the importance of and likewise does not respect the existence of other species, even its most closely related pongid cousins.
Conclusion
It is not uncommon for the mention of animal testing to create a stir among people today, especially when it occurs under conditions which seem cruel or inhumane as the thought of intentionally harming another innocent creature seems morally wrong. That being said, as expressed by Morris, �many people. . .find this exploitation disturbing, although they seldom deny themselves the many benefits that mankind enjoys today as a result� (254). This statement bids the question of just how far people are willing to reform to rectify what they see as unnecessary animal exploitation, without completely de-evolving back into an archaic pre-civilized lifestyle? Optimists may foresee the achievement of a state of �dynamic equilibrium� in the case of animal exploitation by humans, while others would predict the rapid collapse humankind as well as many species if drastic reforms in human attitudes are not accomplished. A modern organization responsible for the conception of �The Great Ape Project� advocates � Equality Beyond the Species Barrier�, seeking the extension of basic human rights to the great apes. Supported by renown conservationists and researchers in the field of primatology such as Dian Fossey, Jane Goodall and Birute Galdikas, the project would oversee the elimination of testing and exploitation of the great apes. While this endeavor would be considered by most as a step in the right direction, many would still argue for further reform of human attitudes towards the exploitation of all animals, not just those which are most human-like.
Gradually, people are becoming educated and more aware of the need for animal conservation, and as in the case of the orangutans of Borneo, stricter laws and law enforcement have significantly reduced (but not totally eliminated) the occurrence of the capture of wild apes for use as pets. Nonetheless, humankind�s widespread perceived dominion over all creatures abounds and continues to act in its disfavor. Among academic circles in the Biology field, it is a commonly upheld theory that (without nature adopting any kind of conscience, of course) evolution does not produce better individuals, it produces better suited individuals to respond to the demands applied by nature. Furthermore, in recognizing the harsh competitive conditions imposed by nature that govern the differential survival of entire species, it is impossible to ignore the fact that each of those in existence play an integral role in the balance of the rest of the natural world. Whether it is to be regained or gained anew, only when this delicate balance is recognized will an equal role in the rest of nature be a certainty for humankind.
| Read my Dreambook! Sign my Dreambook! | |