In an essay written by Roger Cohen, Cohen talks about two monkeys named Canto and Owen, who are part of an experiment in aging. During the experiment, Canto is fed “a restricted diet with 30 percent less calories than usual” while Owen is able to eat whatever his heart desires. As part of his conclusion, Cohen says that though Canto may live longer, he would prefer it to be Owen who outlives the other, and he is right to do so. Due to his attachment to monkeys and his understanding of “monkey’s feelings”, Cohen is able to see Canto and Owen’s reactions to humans based on their diets. According to Cohen’s description of the monkeys from their pictures in the New York Times, Canto appeared to be “drawn, weary, ashen, and miserable in his thinness, mouth slightly agape, features pinched, and eyes blank” while his description of Owen was “ eyes twinkling, full mouth relaxed, skin glowing, exuding wisdom as if he’s just read Kierkegaard.” It is because he is able to tell how the monkeys are feeling that Cohen has the right judgment to hope that Owen lives longer because once the experiment is over the monkeys will possibly be taken to the zoo.
While reading Saint Monkey, there were several parts that reminded me of “Trilobites.” Saint Monkey tells the story of Audrey and Caroline living in a small town wanting to become jazz singers out of their hometown. When Audrey’s dad died is what really made me connect this story to “Trilobites.” One of the main parts of “Trilobites” is when Collie’s dad died and how it affects the rest of the story. One should realize how Saint Monkey and “Trilobites,” are similar through the characters and conflicts and how conflicts throughout the stories affect the characters and what writing style the author chooses to use.
The second film by Johanson seemed to disturb me because it discussed how some believe that all primates are killers and it portrayed this idea in film and in television. I disagree with the idea that all primates are predators and are always hunting harmless animals and destroying things. I understand that some primates must rely on hunting as a source of survival but I believe the portrayal of primates as barbaric in the film was unnecessary. In the second film, the primates were shown destroying piles of bones and throwing large objects.
...ur is dependent upon its mother for only a few months after its birth, while an ape is dependent for four or five years. A chimpanzee infant cannot survive if its mother dies before it reaches the age of 4 at the very least.” I understood this when I witnessed the close bond between Ramona and her newborn. Seeing their affinity for each other reminded me that humans are also very well attached to young ones who are new to this world. This makes sense because after all, chimpanzees are our closest living relatives!
The second step shown in these monkey’s evolutionary progress is that now these animals appear to be goal oriented. Like mentioned previously, these monkeys had been working for themselves. They would do what ever they could to benefit themselves, get food, and have a nice place to sleep. Yet, once the changes begin and they have a leader, the monkeys begin to act as a group. They are more coordinated and it seems that their living style has changed from anarchy to monarchy. They attack a larger animal and kill it as a group. In turn, the raw meat is then split between the monkeys and everyone gets a share.
He discusses "animals subjected every year to agonizing research center experiments"(Rifkin) and "raised under the most heartless conditions." He additionally cites that animals are "for butcher and human utilization." These words, words like subjected, coldhearted, and butcher have staggeringly negative meanings and infer thoughts of ruthlessness and viciousness. On the off chance that we take after Rifkin 's reasoning, and animals resemble individuals, and we butcher (for eating no less) and place needles in their eyes in a lab- - that is essentially unsatisfactory. This is the thing that Rifkin need us to get it. For Rifkin, this is the present circumstance however it doesn 't need to be. On the off chance that people comprehend that animals are particularly similar to us, we will need them to be treated with the same admiration and poise. Right now, we are not doing this. However, we can.
The cost, in this experiment, was the separation of a baby monkey from its mother. Also, it was forced to endure inhumane conditions by being frightened, not knowing what it did to deserve such treatment. I understand the positive implications that can result from experiments on animals, but only the tests that are absolutely necessary should be performed. In saying this, Harry Harlow crossed the line when he caused the baby monkeys psychological scarring. He had already collected definitive data from the previous wire and cloth mother tests, so this extra step was not called
In the essay entitled “The Sacred Conspiracy” by Georges Bataille, there is a text that says, “A world that cannot be loved to the point of death—in the same way that a man loves a woman—represents only self-interest and the obligation to work. If it is compared to worlds gone by, it is hideous, and appears as the most failed of all. …Men today profit in order to become the most degraded being that have ever existed,” (Bataille 179). Interestingly enough, the comment can be applied to the problematic relationship of the human and the animal as seen in Byron Haskin’s film The Naked Jungle.
Gluck mentions that there are many ethical principles researchers must follow when conducting research on humans, but no document exists for primates. He states that research in cognitive ethology and neuroscience suggests that we underestimate animals’ mental complexity and pain sensitivity. However, if a human is the subject then the researchers are much more cautious. Due to the lack of acknowledging animals’ suffrage, Gluck’s argument is that our moral universe changes. Primates feel pain similar to humans. Humans rely on the ethical code of conduct during research. There is no ethical code of conduct for primates even though they feel pain just as humans do; therefore, our moral universe changes. The conclusion considering our change in morals is an inductive leap rather than a necessary
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.
Every couple hundred years, one of these humans, by chance or by a case of true cruelty, falls into the hands of scientists, eager to make the most of such a 'misfortune'. Roger Shattuck's The Forbidden Experiment follows one of the more prominent cases of our recent history, that of the 'Wild Boy of Aveyron.'
Typical Western thought directs people to examine the practices of cannibalism as savage and primitive. More often than not, this type of association exists because the people viewing the action are frightened and confused by that which they do not understand. In fact, some would even claim that, “cannibalism is merely a product of European imagination” (Barker, 2), thereby completely denying its existence. The belief that cannibalism goes against “human instinct”, as seen in many literary works including Tarzan, reduces those who practice it to being inhuman. (Barker, 1) However, scientific findings demonstrate that those who practice cannibalism are still human despite their difference in beliefs; therefore, not only can rationalization be extrapolated from those who practice the act of cannibalism, but also denying the fact of the participant’s very humanity has been undermined through scientific findings.
In 1935 a scientist named Carlyle Jacobsen made an observation on the behavior of chimpanzees
“From the time Charles Darwin wrote his last book, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872) to about the time Neil Armstrong left footprints on the moon nearly a century later (1969), prevailing scientific dogma denied animals their hearts and minds. A nonhuma...
Animals have feelings and show emotion, unlike many of the scientists who experiment on them. Animals have emotions and have the ability to show empathy towards other animals. Chandna reports, “In one notoriously cruel experiment, macaque monkeys were given food only if they pulled a chain that electrically shocked another monkey. Nearly all the monkeys preferred to go hungry, and one macaque went without food for 12 days rather than cause pain to another” (Chandna). This undoubtedly demonstrates the ability of an animal to show feelings and empathy towards another, even if the outcome is the animal itself suffering. Many humans would react the same way in a similar situation. In a different experiment rats would be offered a treat for themselves while another rat was confined, but instead of eating the reward they would free the other rat and share the treat with them (Chandna). It is not surprising that the rat would share their treat due to them being extremely social animals who “become emotionally ...
The experiments and other data show that animals are not just driven by instincts alone. There is more to them than that. It is hard to watch dogs play and believe that they derive no fun or pleasure from it at all. Animals have shown that they are sensitive to their social surroundings. They punish one another and alleviate other’s pain. Some monkeys in established communities attack those that find food and don’t share. These studies are important. A better understanding of how animals are feeling could create a whole new guideline of rules on the way animals should be treated. Humans should not be so arrogant to believe they are the only animals capable of emotion. How are we capable of seeing from their viewpoint and assume they feel no emotion.