I am an art history major so I decided to ask my fellow art historians to answer some of the questions I had for them about primate conservation. This is the questions I asked: What is your definition of a primate? Do you think it is important to conserve primates? Do you consider humans primates? If so why should we care about “conserving” humans and not non-human primates? Finally, do you know the effect of palm oil production in countries like Indonesia? Most of the students I asked were really interested in the general topic of conservation in general. I didn’t encounter a person that didn’t care at all about the subject which is a good sign. What surprised me was the questions I got in return and some of them were quite well developed …show more content…
Most of my answers were “why should we?”. It seems to be a simple answer, but it totally corresponds to the unmentioned ethical reason which I share. All four of my friends are very aware of the degradation of the world and the effect we have in this phenomenon, and they totally understand that humans are at the roots of the problem, especially the demon we have created which is money. I was expecting at list one person to counter this ethical argument, but unfortunately all my colleagues were on the same page. It is also worth mentioning the question that preceded which was “Do you consider humans primates? If so why should we care about “conserving” humans and not non-human primates?”. Most people value humans more than animals which can be understood due to the relationship we have and the fact that we belong to the same species. However, two of my friends (myself included) think that animals should have the same importance and “value” as humans do and this is just based on the ethical aspect of conservation since there is no real argument to give except an opinion. I find it interesting that even though we are in most domains way smarter than non-human primates, some people keep believing in a global interspecies
A Primate’s Memoir, written by Robert Sapolsky, documents the author’s time in Kenya while he studied the various behaviors of a troop of baboons. One of the key aspects of the book was the social rank that developed within the troop. Female baboons have a social hierarchy that is fairly cut and dry. The eldest baboons in the troop are considered the higher-ranking females, and as the baboons get younger, so to follows the string of dominance. The ranking for males was essentially from the strongest baboons to the weakest baboons. The baboon at the top of the social hierarchy was considered the alpha male. This social rank has huge implications for the troop in regards to which baboons mated with each other. If another baboon wanted to become the alpha male, then he would have to challenge the current alpha male to a fight, and win. The baboon’s distinct personality mixed with their instincts are the primary factors for where one lands on the social hierarchy. Another key aspect of the book was the strategies that took place when the baboons wanted to mate with another baboon. Similar to humans, the baboon males tried to impress the female baboons in a way that would make them want to mate. The rank of the male is considered to be one of the greatest factors contributing to what mate they end up with, because there is nothing more impressive than becoming a high-ranking baboon. Also, there were instances of lower-ranking baboons strategizing and forming teams with other baboons to become a higher ranking baboon for the mating possibilities. The baboons in the group are considered a patch-work of different troops, as it is common for one baboon to move to different groups frequently.
Human are the most clever animals in the world. As the society developed, they are more concerned to seek for a harmony relationship with nature. The article “In the Forests of the Gombe” written by Jane Goodall describes the relationship of science and religious and the new understanding of humans through the forest. After Goodall’s husband died, she went through the Gombe jungle and found the new world by observing chimpanzees and staying in the quiet forest. Even though there are no communication between Goodall and chimpanzees in the forest, she still gets inner peace and enlightenment of science and religious.
“By the time we’re done, it’s quite possible that there will be among the great apes not a single representative left, except, that is, for us,” Kolbert deduces (225). Hunting a species has caused the endangerment and extinction of many species of animals and plants. Six out of eight species of the world’s bears are categorized as “vulnerable” or “endangered” to extinct (222). Advocating for rights of endangered species, and protecting the forests they habitat is a noteworthy method to prevent extinction caused by humans. As an individual, one could help by supporting and donating to organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and more (262). Humans may ease their conscience by not actively killing endangered species, but protecting them
Do non-human primates have communication, language, both, or neither? By definition, communication is the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information (Snowdon). Communication is very closely related to social behavior since they are both referring to the ways animals interact with each other (Quiatt and Reynolds 1993). Conversely, language is defined as a system of communication using sounds or gestures that are put together in meaningful ways according to a set of rules (Haviland et al. 2010). Non-human primates and human primates are similar in many ways, and communication is no exception. They both have various types of communication senses and styles. Human primate communication senses consist of sight, smell, taste, hearing, and touch. Non-human primates mainly understand the world through sight, but smell, taste, and hearing are important as well (Quiatt and Reynolds 1993). Human primates are capable of speaking a language, while non-human primates use different vocal calls to communicate. In essence, the difference is simple, human primates have language while non-human primates do not. Even though non-human primates do not have language, they do have communication.
author discusses the obstacles she and her husband faced when they were looking for an
Throughout situations and research conducted by not only Robert Sapolsky or Jane Goodman, but from many other credited sources, we can blatantly see the, if not identical, similarities between the two species of humans and baboons. The most apparent likewise characteristics of this can be read and documented in Professor Sapolsky’s book, A Primate’s Memoirs. Sapolsky, who spent hundreds if not thousands, of hours studying these Savanna Baboons, sheds a vast insight into ideas of social dominance, mating strategies, instinctual prowess, community settings, hygiene, and reform of an entire generation; many of which can be unknowingly seen directly in the common occurrence of a humans daily life.
The long-term aim is to develop an approach to ethics that will help resolve contemporary issues regarding animals and the environment. In their classical formulations and as recently revised by animal and environmental ethicists, mainstream Kantian, utilitarian, and virtue theories have failed adequately to include either animals or the environment, or both. The result has been theoretical fragmentation and intractability, which in turn have contributed, at the practical level, to both public and private indecision, disagreement, and conflict. Immensely important are the practical issues; for instance, at the public level: the biologically unacceptable and perhaps cataclysmic current rate of species extinctions, the development or preservation of the few remaining wilderness areas, the global limitations on the sustainable distribution of the current standard of living in the developed nations, and the nonsustainability and abusiveness of today's technologically intense crop and animal farming. For individuals in their private lives, the choices include, for example: what foods to eat, what clothing to wear, modes of transportation, labor-intensive work and housing, controlling reproduction, and the distribution of basic and luxury goods. What is needed is an ethical approach that will peacefully resolve these and other quandaries, either by producing consensus or by explaining the rational and moral basis for the continuing disagreement.
Modern-day genetic technology has granted mankind with the opportunity to bring back extinct species from the dead. If humans have come to possess the DNA from an extinct animal population, it is possible to create an identical clone of the animal in question, effectively “bringing it back from the dead”. Many ethical dilemmas surround the practice of de-extinction, and rightfully so. Recreating an extinct species could produce groundbreaking scientific breakthroughs, generating exciting opportunities for future genetics-based research. However, there could also be monumental consequences: the newly revived, once-extinct species might destroy the ecological equilibrium of modern Earth
There are many steps to reach the ultimate goal of conserving all species. The “Service is proposing to administer an oral sylvatic plague vaccine for the species’ primary prey: prairie dog” ( USFWS). Since the plague affects both species, a vaccine will ensure that both species will be saved. When the vaccine is administered the prairie dogs will be protected from the plague. Then there will be more prairie dogs for the black-footed ferrets to thrive. Wildlife conservationists need to observe animals and “monitor changes in population and conduct additional research” (Martin and Perrin 214). Keeping surveillance on animals will give a better chance at helping a species become preserved. Monitoring the animals will keep the species population up, and there will be an ability to record new information
Primatologist Frans de Waal of Emory University, says, “I do think we have special obligations to the great apes as our closest relatives, but if we give rights to apes, what would be the compelling reason not to give rights to monkeys, dogs, rats, and so on?” All animals should have rights but it needs to be kept clearly in mind, that apes are what we, as humans, have descended from. They are our true parents, therefore one would do all they can to help protect their parents. The same needs to be done to ours. Apes are the reason we are here, why our parents are here, along with grandparents, and the rest of our loved ones and as our ancestors, they need our protection. What kind of children would it make us if
The Monkey's Paw (1902) is one of the best short stories in Gothic Fiction genre. The author, William Jacobs, presents the story of the White family through the danger of wishing and also the clash between their home life and the outside world. The short story documents a supernatural occurrence, whereby three wishes are granted to the owner of the Monkey's Paw. However, the wishes will come with an enormous price for interfering with fate. Through foreshadowing, symbolism, and language devices such as metaphors, Jacobs conveys the key ideas of fate and greed. This, in turn, exposes the flaws that come from human weakness and consequently frightens and intrigues the audience through its startling realism.
Susan Lindee and Ricardo Santos’ goal was to understand the contexts of genesis and development of biological anthropology around the world from an international standpoint, focusing on engagement with living human populations. Their contributors, scholars in history of science, science studies, and anthropology, were guided by key questions about national histories, collections, and scientific field practice.
The Aquatic Ape theory surfaced in the 1930s when biologist Alister Hardy began to pay attention to how similar humans are to aquatic mammals. While the theory is believed by a large group of people, it also received a great amount of criticism. When researching arguments from both sides of the hypothesis, I came to the conclusion that there are multiple valid points to the concept, but I am neutral to it because of the arguments from the opposing side According to Brian Dunning’s podcast, humans are similar to aquatic mammals for the fact that we do not have fur like other mammals.
This view, that humans are of special moral status, is constantly attempted to be rationalized in various ways. One such defense is that we are not morally wrong to prioritize our needs before the needs of nonhuman animals for “the members of any species may legitimately give their fellows more weight than they give members of other species (or at least more weight than a neutral view would grant them). Lions, too, if they were moral agents, could not then be criticized for putting other lions first” (Nozick, 79). This argument, that we naturally prefer our own kind, is based on the same fallacy used by racists while defending their intolerant beliefs and therefore should be shown to have no logical merit.
In our world today we have approximately 26,021 endangered species. Endangered species are organisms that may possible become extinct. The term 'endangered species' refers to all species that fits this description. However some conservation biologists and scientists normally use the term ‘endangered species’ to refer to species that are put on the IUCN(International Union for Conservation of Nature)Red List. Many factors can be looked at when considering the conservation status of a species. Factors such as human threats or environmental threats can cause a species to become endangered.