"What if chimps became human?" Topic

No I'm not talking about some sci fi thing, more a book keeping thing, Sevral scientists feel that Chimps which are now in the Genus Pan, shoul be actualy be in the genus homo, were we humans are, this would been, that chimps would be a human species, not Homo Sapiens, but still a human species. It would mean that homo sapiens would no longer be the sole survivor of the humanity, it would also mean, that chips should get the same protections as us. After all it's called HUMAN rights, and chips would then be human.

Well, except that there really is no such thing as human rights.

Chimps would have the right to bear arms, and freedom of the Press.

Hmm….would that make the sentence "Get your stinking hands off me you Damned dirty Apes!" racist?

Just asking…..

Speciesist????

Being in the genus Homo doesn't make a species human. It makes them a Homonid.

Whole chunk of stuff here

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

Can I finally get a monkey butler?

Law is not based on science. The two are barely tangentially compatible.

That second part is not meant to be snarky. OK, I intentionally said it in a snarky way, but it is a serious concern of mine.

Science is the pursiut of describing what "is". Law is the collaborative process of asserting what "should be".

Science has no capacity to direct or even inform law. Law can inquire of science, but only by first creating tailoring an assertion to have specific terms that are appropriate for scientific discussion. Science can then respond to the inquiry and the loop is closed.

And the loop needs to be closed after direct inquiry and response because the nature of change in science and law are fundamentally different.

You're really talking about genus, not species. (Good edit of the original post.) Humans are genus Homo; chimpanzees and bonobos are genus Pan; Gorillas are genus Gorilla; orangutans are genus Pongo. Within each genus there are several species (some extant, some extinct).

One of the key defining biological characteristics of the genus Homo is full bipedalism. So, right off the bat, unless we redefine the definition of Homo, chimps are out of luck.

In addition, for humans and chimps to be in the same genus, we'd have to be able to mate and to produce viable, healthy, non-sterile offspring. There have never been any reliable reports of human-chimp hybrids (outside of propaganda, pulp fiction, and some wargames).

Also, scientifically speaking, "able to mate" means that mating is not just physically possible, but also *desirable*. I don't think beer-goggles that strong have been invented yet – for either participant. (Although there will always be "outliers" in any society willing to try just about anything.)

There are lots of other scientific reasons that chimps shouldn't be considered human. You can Google 'em, if you're interested.

Now, even if chimps aren't human, should they still be considered worthy of protections similar to that afforded to most humans in most human societies? That's a different scientific, legal, and societal question.

Personally, I'd like to see more limits placed on the use of all apes in research and entertainment. Google "ape abuse" and you'll see that you don't have to be a card-carrying member of PETA in order to be sickened by the way some humans mistreat the apes in their care.

Call if Ape Rights instead of Human Rights, and I'd sign on.

it would also mean, that chips should get the same protections as us

No, it wouldn't.

Besides, chimps don;t have to be human, humans are already just the most successful of the Great Apes.
-Kle.

"In biological sciences, particularly anthropology and palaeontology, the common name for all members of the genus Homo is "human""

The reason sevral scientists feel chimps should be put on the genus homo, is that there is less genetic diffrences between homo sapians chimps then other species that are in the same genus.

Did anyone consider that chimps might not WANT to be brought down to the same level as us?

Ook !

They'd be taking on a reduced status for one, and a cut in pay and lifestyle.

The reason sevral scientists feel chimps should be put on the genus homo, is that there is less genetic diffrences between homo sapians chimps then other species that are in the same genus.

"Several scientists" is the key phrase. The vast majority of scientists in relevant fields agree that genetic difference is only part of the story.

I first read about this move to "humanize" chimps about ten years ago. IIRC, it was only a very, very small number of scientists who felt this way. And I don't think there's been much movement on the issue since then.

Somebody will want to marry one, settle down, and raise a family of….. "Chumans".

Then the arguments will begin about which Ivy League school they should attend.

They will get elected to Congress. Couldn't be worse.

I think the chumans are already here, I saw "fousands" of'em" in Afghansistan…….
DING' doghouse

In addition, for humans and chimps to be in the same genus, we'd have to be able to mate and to produce viable, healthy, non-sterile offspring. There have never been any reliable reports of human-chimp hybrids (outside of propaganda, pulp fiction, and some wargames).

Don't you mean "species" here, instead of "genus"?

Not in our or our 1000 generations of lifetimes. But if Neanderthals were discovered still alive somewhere I would bet they would.

Don't you mean "species" here, instead of "genus"?

Yes, I'd have used "species" if chimps and humans were already in the same genus. But the OP is talking about the idea of moving chimps from genus Pan into genus Homo – which *should* make it exponentially more difficult (if not impossible) to get a viable hybrid. But who knows with chimps and humans? I'm certainly not willing to be the guinea pig in *that* experiment. ;P

Jpattern,

I think you miss my point. You stated:

In addition, for humans and chimps to be in the same genus, we'd have to be able to mate and to produce viable, healthy, non-sterile offspring.

That is the definition of species, not genus. A genus is a grouping of related, but separate species. Admittedly, the "definition" of genus has a sufficient amount of wiggle room, but the ability to breed doesn't seem to be included.

At any rate, placing chimps and bonobos (don't forget the bonobos) in the genus Homo hardly makes them "human". I'd venture that the common definition of "human" is to be a member of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

This idea is at least a decade or so old. And Jared Diamond is one of the scientists that first proposed it.

link

Note the title of the article

Ah, point taken, Bowman. I played a little too fast and loose with the terms. And, yes, I mentioned bonobos in my first post. Orangs are my second-favorite primates, next to us. :)

I wonder if some of this is an attempt to raise awareness on the plight of these creatures that are so genetically like us.

Hominids and Genus Pan diverged from a common ancestor about 5 million years ago. Then Chimps and Bonobos split from each other a little as 1.5 million years ago. It seems that neither chimps nor bonobos are good swimmers and they were separated by the Congo River. This produced the two species. The bonobos inhabit a smaller territory, that is being encroached by deforestation and civilization. There are maybe only up to 50,000 left and they are on the Endangered Species List.

link

Pretty sad for something so genetically similar to us.

I suspect that's the main driver behind this.

There was a Twilight Zone episode in which Roddy McDowell played an astronaut placed in an alien zoo. The tagline was "people are the same all over." I think of that whenever I see a chimp or other ape in a zoo, circus, or medical research facility, or when I see their wild habitat being destroyed.

Along related lines: link

"Research Chimps Should Be Retired & Sent To Sanctuary, NIH Committee Says"