Human Superiority Myth - Essay Example

Human Superiority Myth Thousands of years ago our ancestors treated animals like gods. They carved their statues and prayed to them. But when Christianity came animals became the lowest creatures on the Earth. Nowadays thesis about Human superiority is reconsidered. Its peak is the animal rights movement, which final aim is to equate humans and animals beyond the law. Peter Singer, author of Animal Liberation, argues that we need to extend rights to the great apes, in the first instance, followed by all other animal species. People have always considered the most distinctive feature between them and animals the sophisticated language. As Joel Wallman, author of Aping Language, explains, "...language, at least in the European intellectual tradition, is the quintessential human attribute, at once evidence and source of most that is transcendent in us, distinguishing ours from the merely mechanical nature of the beast" (cited in Gabriel, 2000). In the 18th century a French philosophy, Julien Offray de la Mettrie, wrote a book titled L'Homme Machine. He thought that all the creatures on the Earth are the mere machines and suggested that the reason animals "cannot speak is not because of any inferiority in rationality to human beings but because of 'some defect in the organs of speech.' He believed a young ape could be taught the use of language" (Carlin, 2000). His suggestions proved wrong in 20th century. Much language research has involved teaching primates to use variations of sign language including famous studies of three gorillas - Washoe, Koko, and Nim Chimpsky. "David and Ann Premack, primate researchers themselves, argue that "The evidence we have makes it clear that even the brightest ape can acquire not even so much as the weak grammatical system exhibited by very young children" (cited in Carlin, 2000) But the fact that animals can't talk doesn't prove our superiority. World-renown linguist Noam Chomsky - after whom Nim Chimpsky is humorously named - once said, "If you want to find out about an organism you study what it's good at. If you want to study humans you study language. If you want to study pigeons you study their homing instinct. Every biologist knows this" (cited in Carlin, 2000). We should not evaluate an animal from our human positions. What is right for us can be wrong for them. Stephen Budiansky, the author of the book If Lions Could Talk considers animals as intelligent as we are, but explains that it is another kind of intelligence. To test animal intelligence for him is the same as to test a blind person giving him a written IQ test. Budiansky asserts that every animal has his own sort of intelligence. Monkeys performed far superior to rats in test based in visual discriminations, though rats are better in the same test based in smell discrimination. "The branching tree of evolution has not just one culmination, but millions of culminations -- represented in every living species on earth today," he writes. "Each is a brilliant success at what it does." And it is the nature of such "brilliance" that remains to ponder" (Gabriel, 2000). As for language, animals speak, but their way of communication differs from ours. Researcher have counted that our closest relatives, apes, with whom humans share an astonishing 98.4% DNA, use nearly 68 different sounds in their communication. "Orangutans may have the most impressive individual call of any ape, the long call. It begins with a low soft grumble, modulating in pitch like a string bass player using vibrato" ("The Animal Communication Project", n.d.). This one means that this territory has an owner and possibly calls females. Some orangutans accompany this call by crashing snags. In response this call triggers long calls from neighboring males. The pant-hoot - is one of the best-studied chimpanzee vocalizations. "It begins with breathy, low-pitched hoots that segue into a series of quicker, higher-pitched in-and-out pants, as if the chimp were trying to play harmonica without an instrument. Finally the pant-hoot builds to a loud climactic crescendo". Both male and female use this call. There are a lot of subtle variations, which may well carry different meaning. "Male chimpanzees sometimes accompany long-distance pant-hoots by drumming with their hands or feet on tree buttresses or hollow stumps or logs, and appear to use pant-hoots to communicate their location over long distances" ("The Animal Communication Project", n.d.). Among the most important proves that Human is superior to Nonhuman was that of human's rationality. This philosophical tradition was dominant beginning from Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics and it was Michel de Montaigne who proved it wrong. In his most famous essay on this topic, An Apology for Raimond Sebond, the great French philosopher and skeptic gave an account of the case of a logical dog. "The dog was following a scent along a path. Suddenly the single path divided into three. The dog hesitated: Which way to go He sniffed at one path; no scent. He sniffed at a second; no scent there either. And then, without bothering to give an investigatory sniff at the one remaining, he set off on this third path" (Carlin, 2000). This was an example of the simplest syllogism and the dog successfully overcame it. From the religious point of view the heaviest prove of human superiority is Old Testament account (1:1-2:4) of creation where God bestowed human dominion over animals. Several theologians, however, challenge the biblical meaning of the Genesis account and instead suggest an alternative, more compassionate interpretation of the term dominion. Jane Goodall, who spent 35 years with apes in Africa, joins them. In her foreword to Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare (1998) she gives another understanding of this word. "Dominion" is not the best translation of the original Hebrew word, which is actually a verb meaning "made to rule over," as a wise king rules over his subjects with care and respect. Whatever English word is chosen, it is clear that the original Hebrew phrasing implies a respectful and caring attitude towards creation and suggests a sense of responsibility" (Bekoff & Meaney, p. viii). In her interview to New African (2004) Jane Goodall also breaks down another argument of human superiority - using of tools and achievements in technology. She surprised the scientific community when she discovered that chimpanzees are tool-makers. "So when I saw the chimp (whom we had named David Grey-beard) not only using a stem to fish for termites but actually picking a leafy twig and stripping the leaves, modifying his object, I sent a telegram to Louis Leakey. I got this famous reply: "Ha! Ha! Now we must redefine 'tool', redefine 'man', or accept chimpanzees as humans". There is one more point of controversies - human morality. The notion is wrong for two reasons. First, if we don't consider animals the moral agents then we cannot claim humans are morally superior, "because you cannot judge a standard against something that does not exist". Second, if we assume animals are moral agents, then we can't claim that one species is morally superior to another. "The morality of human-kind and wolf-kind are neither better nor worse than the other; humans are morally good at being humans while wolves are morally good at being wolves" ("Animal Ethics Clarifier: an encyclopedia of animal ethics", n.d.). "We are of the same blood, you and me", used to say Maygli to his animal-friends. We have overestimated our superiority and this has led to the colossal losses in nature. We use animals in our needs: kill them for fun, abuse in experiments; take from them their living territory, treat cruelly. Nobody has given us such a right. And we must do our best to save and preserve what can be still saved and preserved and make animals our friends. Works cited: 1. The Animal Communication Project (2005).Retrieved 6 May 2005 from http://acp.eugraph.com 2. Animal Ethics Clarifier: an encyclopedia of animal ethics. Retrieved 6 May, 2005 from http://www.wolftrust.org.uk/aec-p-entries.html#Prejudice 3. Bekoff, Marc & Meaney, Carron A. (1998). Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. Greenwood Press. 4. Carlin, David R. (2000). Rights, Animal and Human. Thirst Things. Retrieved 6 May 2005 from http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0008/opinion/carlin.html 5. Gabriel, Jerry (May 2000). Inside the Minds of Animals. Brain connection. Retrieved 6 May 2005 from www.brainconnection.com/topics/main=fa/minds-animals 6. Hordern, Nick (November 2004). Humans Are Not the Sole Intelligent, Thinking Beings on Earth. New African, No. 434. Read More