
Great Ape Personhood - tosh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood
======
bloak
I've generally been opposed to the whole concept of animal "rights", as
opposed to having laws that prevent _humans_ from abusing animals, which I
support. Animals having "rights" would seem to imply that we have a duty to
protect animals in the wild, which we can't do, and, more importantly, don't
want to do: many conservationists would be strongly opposed to us preventing
predators from killing prey in the wild.

On the other hand, there seem to be a few humans in the wild: Sentinelese,
Amazonian tribes. We deliberately don't enforce the human rights of
individuals belonging to those groups. Perhaps we regard the rights of the
groups as taking precedence?

Perhaps it makes sense for animals to acquire "rights" within the context of
human society, but I still tend to think it's an abuse of the concept of a
"right" because in practice it's just humans enforcing their idea of what's
right: the animals are not being consulted and have not expressed an opinion.
I don't think humans are competent to decide what is in the best interest of
animals in the way in which they are (and have to be) competent to make
decisions on behalf of young and cognitively impaired humans.

I'm definitely undecided about these questions.

~~~
linnaeus
>I've generally been opposed to the whole concept of animal "rights", as
opposed to having laws that prevent humans from abusing animals, which I
support. Animals having "rights" would seem to imply that we have a duty to
protect animals in the wild, which we can't do, and, more importantly, don't
want to do: many conservationists would be strongly opposed to us preventing
predators from killing prey in the wild.

I recommend this paper:

[https://was-research.org/writing-by-others/legal-personhood-...](https://was-
research.org/writing-by-others/legal-personhood-positive-rights-wild-animals/)

------
ethiclub
If we grant partial personhood based on our knowledge of 'complexity or
maturity of consciousness', we are setting ourselves up to a) see ourselves as
qualified to do so, and even to 'act as god' in some circumstances, b)
creating an expensive, difficult challenge for ourselves, and c) declaring
that there is an appropriate hierarchy - arguably comparable of a caste system
(Which is scary). _Not_ granting any personhood/ rights at all (our current
state) is a subset of this, and the most extreme example of heirarchical
positioning based on 'right to be there'.

On the other hand, granting equal rights to all means treating a squirrel as
reverently as a human, which society does not seem to agree with.

One of the biggest conversations for the 21st century.

Perhaps the former is a means to an end, and the answer is to slowly
assimilate other species into coverage of legislation, with the end game of
protecting all live equally. It feels as if future societies would look back
and judge us for not immediately siding with the latter.

------
k__
In the scifi books of the series "Terra Ignota", they have special global
minor laws, for children.

These are also extended to animals and AIs with higher cognitive abilities.

I think this is a good way.

