Thursday, June 26, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Spanish parliament to extend rights to apes

by Reuters

Thanks to Andrew Heggie for the link.

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL256586320080625

Spanish parliament to extend rights to apes
By Martin Roberts

MADRID (Reuters) - Spain's parliament voiced its support on Wednesday for the rights of great apes to life and freedom in what will apparently be the first time any national legislature has called for such rights for non-humans.

Parliament's environmental committee approved resolutions urging Spain to comply with the Great Apes Project, devised by scientists and philosophers who say our closest genetic relatives deserve rights hitherto limited to humans.

"This is a historic day in the struggle for animal rights and in defense of our evolutionary comrades, which will doubtless go down in the history of humanity," said Pedro Pozas, Spanish director of the Great Apes Project.

Spain may be better known abroad for bull-fighting than animal rights but the new measures are the latest move turning once-conservative Spain into a liberal trailblazer.

Spain did not legalize divorce until the 1980s, but Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's Socialist government has legalized gay marriage, reduced the influence of the Catholic Church in education and set up an Equality Ministry.

The new resolutions have cross-party or majority support and are expected to become law and the government is now committed to update the statute book within a year to outlaw harmful experiments on apes in Spain.

"We have no knowledge of great apes being used in experiments in Spain, but there is currently no law preventing that from happening," Pozas said.

Keeping apes for circuses, television commercials or filming will also be forbidden and breaking the new laws will become an offence under Spain's penal code.

Keeping an estimated 315 apes in Spanish zoos will not be illegal, but supporters of the bill say conditions will need to improve drastically in 70 percent of establishments to comply with the new law.

Philosophers Peter Singer and Paola Cavalieri founded the Great Ape Project in 1993, arguing that "non-human hominids" like chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans and bonobos should enjoy the right to life, freedom and not to be tortured.

(Reporting by Martin Roberts; Editing by Richard Williams)

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Thursday, June 26, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 44 of 44 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #199750 by History_Junky on June 26, 2008 at 10:10 am

Wow this is pretty cool, who knew that super catholic spain would one day become so damn liberal.

Other Comments by History_Junky

2. Comment #199752 by Vaal on June 26, 2008 at 10:15 am

So, now these primates can join the other primates in the Catholic church with an equal footing?

Watch out Darth Ratty, you have some competition for your job!

Other Comments by Vaal

3. Comment #199759 by hungarianelephant on June 26, 2008 at 10:30 am

Not that I want to be a damp squib or anything, and it's good to see the status of higher animals finally being discussed seriously, but

"We have no knowledge of great apes being used in experiments in Spain, but there is currently no law preventing that from happening," Pozas said.

Seriously, don't they have anything better to do in the Spanish Parliament?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

4. Comment #199768 by Andrew Stich on June 26, 2008 at 10:41 am

Good news, but poorly written.

Humans ARE apes. Why is that so hard to understand?

And, the title is misleading. The title says "apes", which means gibbons, siamangs, orangutans, gorillas, humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos, but the rest of the article says "great apes", which excludes gibbons and siamangs.

Other Comments by Andrew Stich

5. Comment #199777 by Barbara on June 26, 2008 at 10:51 am

Any human 'rights' afforded non-human animals would have to be limited to the welfare of those animals (ie; protections from certain harms caused by human actions). I think this is a good thing and I hope these 'rights' will eventually extend to other animals as well. It may be just what is needed to curtail our encroachment on vital wildlife habitats and to help educate people on the problems caused by human overpopulation.

Other Comments by Barbara

6. Comment #199783 by Lucas on June 26, 2008 at 11:01 am

Excellent. Break down that wall. For too long we have lived with the homicidal hubris that we are somehow intrinsically more valuable than other forms of life. Without God, without a soul, all of that breaks down, and rather than losing our sacred status and becoming profane, all the rest of the glorious life on this planet becomes as sacred as we are, thus destroying the distinction entirely. To enshrine that in law is more than I could have ever hoped for.

Other Comments by Lucas

7. Comment #199786 by al-rawandi on June 26, 2008 at 11:02 am

elephant,

Seriously, don't they have anything better to do in the Spanish Parliament?

You mean like actually dealing with the evolved threat of the nizam la tanzim Jihadism which is CENTERED in Spain?

Were you thinking something like that?

Barbara,

Hey I am all for reducing human populations. We need a couple more wars and a plan to euthanize stupid people, and I think we are on the right track.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

8. Comment #199797 by Barbara on June 26, 2008 at 11:15 am

al-rawandi wrote:

Hey I am all for reducing human populations. We need a couple more wars and a plan to euthanize stupid people, and I think we are on the right track.

Unfortunately, some people really think that way. There are much simpler, less devastating, ways to reduce the human population. I know I need not even mention what one of the biggest obstacles to this is. :(

Other Comments by Barbara

9. Comment #199801 by al-rawandi on June 26, 2008 at 11:18 am

Barbara,

Nature can always straighten us out with a deadly strain of flu virus, to the tune of 50% of world population.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

10. Comment #199805 by Vaal on June 26, 2008 at 11:28 am

8. Comment #199797 by Barbara

Barbara, it is all about education. People should be encouraged to have less children, with tax benefits etc. The population of parts of Europe are in decline, except for the muslim immigrants, where their poor woman are hardly more than breeding machines.

The world population is unsustainable, it has more than doubled since I was born, and by 2050 it will be closing on 10 million. The world isn't an infinite resource. We have already nearly emptied the oceans, are fighting over water resources, and are responsible for a massive extinction event.

Yes, the holy grail of population growth should be addressed sensibly. We have no other choice. However, religion is one of the greatest obstacles, although ironically the Catholic church's condemnation of condoms is responsible for a world aids epidemic.

Other Comments by Vaal

11. Comment #199809 by Barbara on June 26, 2008 at 11:30 am

al-rawandi,

That's true. But why wait for that to happen? Let's just stop having so many babies, dammit. ;) Most folks can't afford them anyway.

Other Comments by Barbara

12. Comment #199810 by Apathy personified on June 26, 2008 at 11:30 am

Vaal - Do you mean 10 BILLION? As i'm pretty sure there's more than 10 million people atm. :)

Other Comments by Apathy personified

13. Comment #199811 by Vaal on June 26, 2008 at 11:32 am

Sorry, typo. HaHa!

Other Comments by Vaal

14. Comment #199814 by al-rawandi on June 26, 2008 at 11:34 am

Barbara,

That's true. But why wait for that to happen? Let's just stop having so many babies, dammit. ;) Most folks can't afford them anyway.

I am an only child, my parents did their part. The only problem is my parents both have PhD's and all of their PhD holding friends had only one child, while all the idiots we know have lots of kids. It may be beyond hope, we are filling the gene pool with morons (alt. spelling: mormons).

Other Comments by al-rawandi

15. Comment #199815 by Barbara on June 26, 2008 at 11:34 am

Vaal,

RAmen to that.

Other Comments by Barbara

16. Comment #199817 by Don_Quix on June 26, 2008 at 11:35 am

A moderately-sized asteroid would clean things up in a jiffy too.

Other Comments by Don_Quix

17. Comment #199821 by Gregg Townsend on June 26, 2008 at 11:39 am

How about some theme music for the new topic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCEeAn6_QJo

"Some say a comet will fall from the sky..."

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

18. Comment #199836 by Barbara on June 26, 2008 at 12:00 pm

I didn't mean to hijack the topic. It just seems logical to me that by recognizing the basic 'rights' of other species people would (might, hopefully) come to understand our NEED to keep them, and their environments, safe and healthy. It's all about sustaining a livable environment for all life.

Other Comments by Barbara

19. Comment #199841 by al-rawandi on June 26, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Barbara,

That is how these threads work.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

20. Comment #199888 by mordacious1 on June 26, 2008 at 1:09 pm

I see a Geico commercial in the future.

Other Comments by mordacious1

21. Comment #199942 by Spinoza on June 26, 2008 at 2:16 pm

HIGH IQ isn't hereditary.

The whole concept of breeding intelligence out of existence is ridiculous.

In fact, parents with high IQs will tend to have children whose IQs will gravitate toward the mean.

Other Comments by Spinoza

22. Comment #199945 by al-rawandi on June 26, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Spinoza,

Any studies to suggest this?

Are your parents intelligent?

In my experience smarter people have intelligent children, more so than people at the lower end of IQ.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

23. Comment #199952 by mordacious1 on June 26, 2008 at 2:32 pm

I think that there is a recessive gene for a lower IQ in all of us, but I have to agree with Al, that smart people, have smart kids. One could argue though, that if you took a kid at birth from two seemingly low IQ parents (with all the proper prenatal and nutritonal care, no drugs, etc.), and raised it in a home of two Phd's in science, then this kid would grow up better educated and seem to have a higher IQ. I know I'd be smarter today if my parents were better educated and promoted learning at home.

Other Comments by mordacious1

24. Comment #199953 by righton on June 26, 2008 at 2:32 pm

I think education plays a big role in intelligence. Almost everyone could be considered intelligent if they are brought up in the right environment.

If parents do not value education their children most likely will not be educated. If the children grow up and decide they value education then it is up to them to educate themselves even though they are already behind the other "intelligent" people.

Other Comments by righton

25. Comment #199967 by al-rawandi on June 26, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Also, I don't recall saying it was genetic. I said smart people end up with smart kids, because of environment or whatever, but in general they are smarter.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

26. Comment #199977 by Mike O'Risal on June 26, 2008 at 3:12 pm

The United States once again has been far ahead of the curve on the issue of rights for the Great Apes. In Spain, great apes finally have the right not to be tortured. In America, we've had an ape (and a not-so-great one at that) running the country for the past eight years and ordering torture.

USA! USA! USA!

Other Comments by Mike O'Risal

27. Comment #199978 by Auraboy on June 26, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Isn't it rich people end up with smarter kids? I think access to health care, better nutrition, education etc generally shows a trend towards higher IQ from higher income environments. Although poorer families tend to have more children. Maybe rich people will be bred out. Hmm.

Other Comments by Auraboy

28. Comment #199984 by mordacious1 on June 26, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Auraboy

Some of the stupidest, and I do mean dumb, people I have met have had wealthy parents. The key is having parents who want to educate their kids, and that can happen rich or poor. If the kid is born with a high IQ, so much the better.

Other Comments by mordacious1

29. Comment #199991 by Christopher Davis on June 26, 2008 at 3:23 pm

"Keeping apes for circuses, television commercials or filming will also be forbidden and breaking the new laws will become an offence under Spain's penal code."---article

I'm not so sure I support this. I mean, that orang in all those old Clint Eastwood movies seemed pretty happy to me.

I see nothing wrong with an ape being owned by people, as long as that ape is not mistreated. And as far as experiments go...does this mean there will be a ban on research into ape intelligence and language?

Other Comments by Christopher Davis

30. Comment #199992 by Auraboy on June 26, 2008 at 3:25 pm

I agree it's far more complicated, but since most people seem to like a simple statistical mean starting point oversimplified to the point of nonsense, I wanted to join in!
I know smart parents with moronic children and vice versa. I know average parents with one child of brilliance and one of total inanity. But they're middle income so maybe they represent the ultimate statistical average.
I suppose the higher income families have shown to have children of higher IQ's often because of diet as we know that can show improved IQ scores at an early age. But there was also a recent study I vaguely recall about taking children of low IQ from very low income families and giving them improved nutrition and intensive one on one education and seeing vast improvements in IQ scores in short periods of time.

I'd say IQ's have little to do with genuine intelligence of course.

Although I appear to have wandered from the Great Ape debate somewhat, my apologies.

Other Comments by Auraboy

31. Comment #199994 by TeraBrat on June 26, 2008 at 3:29 pm

The United States once again has been far ahead of the curve on the issue of rights for the Great Apes. In Spain, great apes finally have the right not to be tortured. In America, we've had an ape (and a not-so-great one at that) running the country for the past eight years and ordering torture.

Brilliant!!!!

Other Comments by TeraBrat

32. Comment #200023 by phil rimmer on June 26, 2008 at 4:12 pm

The statistical spread of "intelligence" (or any other measurable attribute) in a population, over a few generations, will remain essentially constant. For this to be so, the intelligence (or magnitude of other attribute) of an off-spring will tend towards the mean on average. If this were not so, the spread (mean, deviation, shape) would distort progressively over the generations. This, of course, is not seen to happen.

Such a state of affairs is still consistent with a hand-waving statement like-

smarter people have intelligent children, more so than people at the lower end of IQ.

"External" factors that push the mean up (improved nutrition, education etc.) may yet not be sufficient to ensure that offspring of smart parents are on average smarter than their parents. However, the mean will still increase.

EDIT Spinoza Line 3 is correct.
EDITED 2 medians to mean....sloppy...Thanks Christopher.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

33. Comment #200048 by Christopher Davis on June 26, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Phil,

I agree.

Regression to the mean is a statistical phenomenon and does not in any way invalidate the idea that if two smarter than average people have children their children will be smater than average.

Most studies have shown IQ be highly heritable. So I think you are dead on when you speak of the mean increasing. However, I think it's important to emphasize that mean is only meaningful (sorry couldn't resist) as it applies to a group.

So if two parents with IQ's of 160 have a few kids, regression to the mean makes it more than probable that none of these children will be "smarter" than either of their parents. But it is also extremely unlikely that any of these children will be below the average IQ of the base population.

The opposite of this also applies. If two parents with IQ's of 80 have a few kids, it is very probable that at most of the children will have average IQ's (between 95-105), but the odds of them producing a genius (IQ 140 ) is significantly less than the odds of the first couple producing a genius.

That being said, I believe that intelligence is a quality that is extremely hard to quantify. Unfortunately, high IQ does correlate strongly with people's common assessment of smart, and for the most part "smart" people do better financially than their "less-smart" colleagues.

So if, there is a strong socioeconomic influence to IQ (and I believe there is), and if high IQ correlates with increased socioeconoic status (studies show it does), then a divergence of the mean IQ between the affluent and the non-affluent is not some far-fetched, elitest idea. It's actually what the data predicts.

Other Comments by Christopher Davis

34. Comment #200087 by gobbles on June 26, 2008 at 8:23 pm

i can't find the article at the moment to back this up, but i remember reading a recent new scientist magazine article that showed evidence that the world population level will level off and begin to decline at around 2070.

Either way, if you want to solve the problems of population growth, you only need to see that fertility rates in developed countries are very low and those in developing countries are soaring.
People having too many babies in developed countries isn't really a problem. Help developing countries too become developed (which includes increasing access to contriception and abortion and pressuring nations for the emancipation of women) is really the only humanitarian solution.
The ironies is that if every developing nation were to become developed via industrialisation (like china is), the amount of greenhouse gases produced would be disastrous.

Other Comments by gobbles

35. Comment #200148 by esuther on June 27, 2008 at 1:39 am

Gay marriage, Church out of education, AND genuine protection for large primates. Way ahead of the curve.

I guess I can forgive Spain for the Inquisition now.

Other Comments by esuther

36. Comment #200178 by LBraschi on June 27, 2008 at 3:04 am

Nobody expected the Spanish Apequisition!

Funny, though. Here in Spain this was not such a big fuss. It made almost no impact on the news.

Other Comments by LBraschi

37. Comment #200187 by Telic on June 27, 2008 at 3:23 am

Thank dog Britain is still in charge of Gibraltar, otherwise the apes might take power !

Other Comments by Telic

38. Comment #200188 by Apathy personified on June 27, 2008 at 3:37 am

It's a good start, but let's hope Spain ends bull-fighting and starts to give other animals proper welfare. (Like EVERY country should - no country is a real role model in this)

On the point about IQ: Is IQ actually a good measure of intelligence? It may give trends and a ballpark figure but can it be used (on it's own) to determine someones intelligence?

Other Comments by Apathy personified

39. Comment #200189 by alfonso on June 27, 2008 at 3:39 am

Any of you who thinks the spanish inquisition was the only one that existed, or the worst, please read some up to date history books on the matter.

Also read something up about the spanish black legend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Legend).

Other Comments by alfonso

40. Comment #200206 by esuther on June 27, 2008 at 4:37 am

Any of you who thinks the spanish inquisition was the only one that existed, or the worst, please read some up to date history books on the matter.

Quite right. In the Netherlands, Italy, Mexico, England -- what's more, it didn't end after the counter-reformation either. Doesn't the Church still have its Index of Forbidden Books?
I have been up to my nostrils in Inquisition research for my novel Sistine Heresy (to be released in January 09). My religion-bashing contribution to the world of popular fiction.
Lots of sex in it too. (Renaissance Rome: duh.)

Other Comments by esuther

41. Comment #200213 by LBraschi on June 27, 2008 at 5:12 am

Hey, alfonso, the Spanish Inquisition mention was a joke. Don't remember the Monthy Python?

On bullfighting: yes, it is horrible too, and there are pressure groups to ban it altogether. Unfortunately, bullfighting moves a lot of money around and there are powerful interest groups in it, unlike the case with the apes.

Other Comments by LBraschi

42. Comment #200258 by Apathy personified on June 27, 2008 at 7:39 am

Unfortunately, bullfighting moves a lot of money around and there are powerful interest groups in it

That's always the way though - No doubt the defenders of bull-fighting use the defense of 'it's a tradition'.
Britain had similar problems banning fox-hunting - Not as much money flowing but fox-hunting had powerful supporters.

Lots of sex in it too

Can't wait!

Edit: Yes, i know the last part was immature.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

43. Comment #200290 by lbq on June 27, 2008 at 9:02 am

In Sweden ALL vertebrates are protected, unless there's a statutory season on them (like moose e.g.) And there's no season on chimps ... I think all animals (including us) should have all the human rights they can understand and use.

Other Comments by lbq

44. Comment #202419 by arogop on July 1, 2008 at 1:17 pm

On the IQ debate,

Parents tend to have a child that is within 10 IQ points of one of the parents. I think the stat is like 80-90% of the time. (propably James Webb, Gary Davis, or L Silverman)

However, high IQ does not neccesarily imply intelligent or smart, just a greater potential.

Most people would observe that a optimal IQ child (120-140ish) seems to be more intelligent that someone in the 180 (profoundly gifted) range. They are certainly the higher "acheivers".

Being born with a high IQ is just a start. The enviroment that you grow up in and what you do with it is what really makes you intelligent. My wife is probaly more intelligent than me even though my IQ is likely many STD's higher. Thank the FSM that I found her!!!

Andrew

Other Comments by arogop