Feature



Nuruddin Mahfuz

By the grace of highly unfair distribution of wealth, people living at the upper levels couldn't care less about humans, but nowadays there is a trend of caring about animals, may be because it gets more media coverage. This scenario has reached its extreme in the western world, where they hardly even know what their children are doing after they turn 18, but show a great deal of care for endangered or maltreated animals. It is a different story all together that these animals are pushed to extinction by the same civilized western world, by putting them up for show or using them for lab tests. Caring for dogs and giving them higher priority than even their own child didn't bother me up until now because it is their life, what do I have to say about it? But recently, a news I read on “bbcnews.com” shocked me to my core and left me wondering how far more we are going to degrade humanity. The news was entitled “Should Apes have human rights”. In Spain there is a movement to give apes status equal to children, the severely handicapped and those in coma. Their justification is-

“Gorillas, bonobos, orangutans and chimps are great apes. Chimpanzees and bonobos differ from humans by only 1% of DNA and could accept a blood transfusion or a kidney. All great apes recognize themselves in a mirror. Great apes can learn and use human languages through signs or symbols but lack the vocal anatomy to master speech. Great apes have displayed love, fear, anxiety and jealousy”.

To my utter distaste I continued reading this article with the belief that it will also include a counter-argument and it did, THANK GOD. Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University of London, stood against this absurd notion. Here is his argument-

"Where do you stop? It seems that being human is unique and nothing to do with biology. Say that apes share 98% of human DNA and therefore should have 98% of human rights. Well mice share 90% of human DNA. Should they get 90% of human rights? And plants have more DNA than humans."

“Chimps can't speak but parrots can. Defining creatures and allowing them rights based on criteria invented by one group is itself an enormous breach of human rights, he says, and one need look no further than Austria in 1939 to see why.”

The article was constructed with such arguments and counter-arguments and there were also comments from readers who also felt disgraced by the fact of offering human rights to apes, but wanted to offer some rights such as the right to life, food, water, a territory, etc to those animals who at least pass the mirror test. But my point of view is a little different. I believe that human, created by the almighty, are superior to all species. Some would say that our ancestors were monkeys, but I don't agree with that. As a living being we all share some common rights. If we didn't have conscience, then we would gladly eliminate anyone that comes into our way. But we can't do that, because we have a conscience. So we have to think twice about our actions. As the superior being in this world it is our duty to look after others, no matter what species they are. But the thing I don't understand is that why do I have to recognize other species as equal? If they argue that it is strictly for the complication of law, then throw these statute books in the gutter because that is the true place for laws that can't even distinguish between humans and other species. If they argue that apes deserve this right because they are so close to us genetically, then I would say there is much more to us than just the mirror test or the display of emotions. In spite of being a human, if those activists can't distinguish between themselves and apes, then ask them to keep their opinion to themselves, because not all people are as patient as me.

We have to first examine our definition of rights and how this right should be distributed. Should rights only be given to animals that can recognize themselves in the mirror? Doesn't a chipmunk deserve the right to life just for the very reason that it is alive?

Of course this notion goes against keeping pets, but that is a little different. Pets such as dogs and cats have adjusted to life with the human society. The problem arises when a clash occurs like it does with the human and apes or other endangered species. It is us who invaded their life cycle by using them for amusement, for lab tests and by destroying their natural habitats. That's why I have no problem compensating for their loss by creating an artificial facility for them or through some other action. But recognizing them as being equal to a human child is too much. Imagine the custody of an orphan child being treated after the custody of a chimpanzee just because the case of the child came later. Or imagine that a fireman is on trial because he chose to save all the children trapped in the fire but none of the chimpanzees. Impossible? Well think again; when apes get human rights this kind of situations may not be mere “babblings of a madman” anymore.

One thing they mainly focused on was the DNA resemblance. Though the counter argument stood against it, but it didn't cancel it out. If the chimps have 99% percent of our DNA and still there is such a vast difference, then DNA is not the factor here. I really would like to restore what the apes have lost as a whole, because being part of the human race, whether I have caused any harm to them or not, it is my duty to try to undo what someone else has done wrong. But in the process losing my dignity as a human can only be the work of a twisted society.

Before finishing, I would like to put light on another quote. A Zoologist Charlotte Uhlenbroek said something which made me laugh so hard that I fell on the floor with the keyboard in my hand. Here it is-

“If I was an alien from Mars and looked at human society and a society of apes then in terms of the emotional life I would see no distinct difference, although we live very different lives because of language and technology.”