In “The Revolt of the Elephants”, Ingrid E. Newkirk writes about the cruelty elephants go through just because humans use them as a source of entertainment. From an entertainment point of view, people do not think about what is actually done to the elephant physically and mentally because they only care about what they will see. “The Revolt of the Elephants” shows the reader the hardship we put one form of life through to give them self-awareness of what actually happens to another. Elephants are some of the best creatures of earth to have because they do not only care but remain loyal to one another. In the wild, “elephants are highly social beings; aunts babysit, mothers teach junior life skills such as how to use leaves and mud to ward off sunburn and insect bites, babies play together under watchful eyes, lovemaking is gentle and complex and elephant’s relatives mourn their dead” (485).
How Similar Are We? How close to human knowledge do you think animals are? In the book, Planet of the Apes and Philosophy edited by John Huss, it contains several philosophical views on the movie Planet of the Apes. Animals may be limited on what they may do with their brains, but that does not mean that animals cannot do things that humans can with their brains. How do people know that animals cannot think; if they do not have a way to communicate, how would they then interact?
He also said that before they test humans on this sort of excitement, they should test several animals like chimpanzees or dogs. My only question is, why on earth did someone not knock some sense into Profesor Nemur and Dr. Struass? They should have never went to the convention that early and they should have tried their experiment on another animal before the tried it on Charlie. This experiment is probably the experiment of their careers.
Mistreating animals as if one does not care for them is the same as mistreating humans. By mistreating poor doubtless animals it affects them and can sometimes lead into suffering stress. If humans are able to protect each other from harm, then why cannot animals do the same thing by having rights? This question is usefully asked for those who try to protect the rights of animals. In the article Of Primates and Personhood the author Ed Yong, a science journalist, contends, “I feel we should extend rights to a wide range of nonhuman animals… ‘all creatures that can feel pain should have a basic moral status’”
Animals rely on microbes to help digest food. If the mammoth’s microbes went extinct, the animal may suffer if brought back. " In many cases, the overall phenotypes [physical appearance] of organisms and their ability to digest food is directly tied to the microorganisms in them," said Susan Perkins, a curator at the American Museum of Natural History. So far, Harvard geneticist George Church and colleagues have used a gene-editing technique to insert mammoth genes into the DNA of elephant skin cells. This is far from cloning mammoths, but it is a first step to manipulating the DNA found in mammoth
Several current federal animal laws like the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Public Health Service Act (PHS), and the Marine Animal Protection Act (MAPA) contribute to the protection of animals, but do not apply to captive zoo animals specifically (Braverman 1698). Organizations like the NhRP (a team of attorneys and legal experts), a Science Working Group, and other activist groups are taking several animal cases to court to grant intelligent species with the basic rights of life and liberty as well as protecting them from ownership and medical experimentation (Mitra 18). Changing the legal status of intelligent species from “things” to “persons” has the possibility to encourage positive change in all captive species. Editor Maureen Nandini Mitra writes, “…the volume of research into the intelligence of these animals (great apes, elephants, dolphins, and whales) and their similarity to us might make judges less resistant to accepting them as legal persons”, (Mitra 25). The research collected that proves the parallels of humans to numerous animal species assists in legally improving the lives of captive
I believe that we all have our own teddy bear. Be it as it may, not all of us find what Treadwell did- meaning. I hate to use meaning in such a broad sense, but in this circumstance I feel it is indispensable. Going back to what Herzog said: finding our own nature is what gives us meaning. Even the word
Another reason that explores think bigfoot is a myth is because there hasn 't been no big and evidence to convince everyone that bigfoot is not a myth. On the other hand many explorers and scientist have claimed bigfoot is not a myth and is real, for example explorers have made trips and might have seen his habitat because it was very big place with big trees on top of each other and only such a beast can have big treas stacked on top of each other to form their habitat. In addition people that don 't believe in bigfoot say it and be someone who cuts down trees and the bears dragged them to form their own habitat to hibernate for the winter. Therefore, many people can have many details to support them selve that bigfoot is real or not. But on the other hand bigfoot could be real because more than half the world hasn 't been discovered and scientist are finding new animals and
I don’t really think today’s world would be unfair to them per se, but just different. Dinosaurs would have the same food sources, and very limited predators. Concerning the limits, you can’t totally control that, nature has its way around things sometimes, and humans are prone to mistakes. The scientist in Jurassic park made a mistake, by using frog DNA, because they forgot about its ability to change genders. So who are we to say that everything would work
There is an unequal relationship between humans and animals (the other). From Jonathan Crowes outlook in his essay “Levinasian Ethics and Animal Rights,” it is impossible to know the other since we do not understand their knowledge and thoughts. In the movie Grizzly Man, Timothy Treadwell tries to break the boundary between himself and the bears (the others). Treadwell exceeds the limits in a quest to form a relationship with the bears. From Crowe’s take, being too familiar with the other is an ethical burden.
Animal Captivity Bears don 't normally ride bikes, tigers don 't normally jump through fire, and elephants don 't normally stand up on their back two legs. Laws that protect traveling animals are not enforced enough to make a difference, and are highly ignored. Circuses should not be allowed to capture wild animals for entertainment purposes because the animals are abused, the populations are decreasing, and the animals don 't have enough freedom. To better understand why eliminating animal captivity for entertainment purposes is the best thing to do, someone must think about the opposing viewpoint. Most argue that the eliminating animal captivity for entertainment purposes is more humane.
Obviously, we like to think of ourselves as the most intelligent but it is in fact the truth. But not only are humans highly intelligent so are apes. We used to separate ourselves from the apes because we believed ourselves to be more evolved. However, fossil evidence as well as genetic evidence shows that this is in fact false. Apes, as well as man, are scattered all over the world.
The article, “Of Primates and Personhood: Will According Rights and “Dignity” to Nonhuman Organisms Halt Research?” by Ed Yong is trying to convince the reader to see a different side to primates. The Great Ape Project set legal rights for chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, and orangutan. United Kingdom and New Zealand protect great apes from experimentation. For the Great Ape Project they are basically setting laws and higher standards for primates to me experimented on or held captive.
Facts about Finger Monkeys Do you think finger monkeys are make good pets? Well if you think that you 're wrong because they don 't make good pets. Finger monkeys are supposed to live in the wild just like other animals. Some legally selling finger monkeys and saying they are good pets.