3 ms·

An interesting book is “Chimpanzee politics”, which details the raucous power struggles and intricate social interactions within a troop of chimps. Eye opening

An interesting book is “Chimpanzee politics”, which details the raucous power struggles and intricate social interactions within a troop of chimps. Eye opening in its complexity. I do wonder about the social ramifications of moving them; this part in particular is key: > Then they would face a world of strangers and uncertain social groupings—intensely stressful to old chimps with established conspecific and human families I think on balance it’s probably misguided to move chimps like this. Better to regulate the quality of care in situ and only move them if it’s deemed to be sub-par. If you start a chimp colony you should be on the hook for ensuring they have a good life in perpetuity, in my book. The great apes have moral value closest to humans of all the animals.

polishdude20 4y ago
>Then they would face a world of strangers and uncertain social groupings—intensely stressful to old chimps with established conspecific and human families. It seems like we do this to humans all the time and don't batt an eye. I'm not saying we should not extend this courtesy to chimps but it seems like there's more care taken here for these chimps than we give to humans.
- kodah 4y ago
  I very much dislike that we callously move people around and have systems that reinforce it. Some people, namely the ones having to do it, adapt to it but it's still not great or even good.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  The moral difference is that the chimps have no say in their movement. So it's more like forcibly relocating humans. Which we've historically done, but generally try to not do now, Russia aside.
- theptip 4y ago
  The big difference I see with the case you're considering is that humans have agency, and can choose for themselves whether to move or stay. (Even though harsh circumstances might strongly influence their decision - still, it's their choice by their evaluation of the trade-offs.) With chimps, we are not asking them what they want; we're making the decision for them. Therefore we carry all of the burden of responsibility that would usually rest with the individual making the decision for themselves. Indeed the only reason they are in this captive environment is because we kidnapped/bred them and put them there. So that's another layer of responsibility that we have for their situation that doesn't apply to normal human decisions.
  - kortilla 4y ago
    > Even though harsh circumstances might strongly influence their decision - still, it's their choice by their evaluation of the trade-offs. Not for children, members of the military, incarcerated people, people served evictions, etc.
    - gibolt 4y ago
      The rule in question for the chimps applies to the whole population, not the exceptions that mostly make sense.
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    Do humans get to choose whether they move or stay? I think there's plenty of seniors in the worst kinds of old people homes that would rather not be there.
    - bluGill 4y ago
      In the worst cases they don't have enough mind left to care. (The worst kind of places they drug them that much, otherwise the residents may or may not have enough mind to care). Above that though there is a large range. Many elderly realize they are running out of ability to care for themselves and move to some form of assisted living where help is on staff, and there are lots of people to talk to - these are generally nice places to live as they need to attract people. However as the body declines those places don't have the ability to care for you and you have to move on, and most are not willing to admit they need that level of care (and such places often are not as nice: you are forced into them instead of invited in)
    - theptip 4y ago
      Indeed, by the same argument I made above, in any situation where a human doesn't have agency in a major decision that dramatically affects their quality of life, then the decision-maker has increased moral responsibility/culpability for the outcome.
  - polishdude20 4y ago
- mannykannot 4y ago
  There's a hypothesis that becoming relatively easy-going and respectful of others' needs and desires was an important step in our evolution. In that regard, I have seen this said: you can take a couple of hundred strangers and cram them into an airplane for twelve hours with no problem (mostly, I now have to add), but if you did this with chimpanzees it would soon become a bloodbath.
  - polishdude20 4y ago
    Yeah and it's because we have a whole world of context about the place we're packed into. We know what planes are, generally how they work, generally how air travel itself works.
    - mannykannot 4y ago
      This was only offered as an illustration of the hypothesis, and it's really up to the reader to decide, from their own knowledge and intuition about human nature, whether your explanation is the whole story. Would you argue that the cases of 'air rage' that we see are due to people not knowing what planes are, or not having a general understanding of how airplanes or air travel work? It is also the case that people involuntarily placed in close confinement for long periods quite often do not start fighting among themselves even when they have no clear understanding of what is going on or what the future holds.
AlbertCory 4y ago
I had to have my 16-year-old cat put down a couple weeks ago. He had cancer. The vet was about as kind and compassionate as I could possibly wish: she even hydrated him so his last moments would be more comfortable. So I don't think it's an easy call for a judge to overrule the vets, who most likely love these animals. Chimps are vicious to each other, and especially to older chimps, as far as I know.

polishdude20 4y ago

>Then they would face a world of strangers and uncertain social groupings—intensely stressful to old chimps with established conspecific and human families. It seems like we do this to humans all the time and don't batt an eye. I'm not saying we should not extend this courtesy to chimps but it seems like there's more care taken here for these chimps than we give to humans.

kodah 4y ago
I very much dislike that we callously move people around and have systems that reinforce it. Some people, namely the ones having to do it, adapt to it but it's still not great or even good.
ethbr0 4y ago
The moral difference is that the chimps have no say in their movement. So it's more like forcibly relocating humans. Which we've historically done, but generally try to not do now, Russia aside.
theptip 4y ago
The big difference I see with the case you're considering is that humans have agency, and can choose for themselves whether to move or stay. (Even though harsh circumstances might strongly influence their decision - still, it's their choice by their evaluation of the trade-offs.) With chimps, we are not asking them what they want; we're making the decision for them. Therefore we carry all of the burden of responsibility that would usually rest with the individual making the decision for themselves. Indeed the only reason they are in this captive environment is because we kidnapped/bred them and put them there. So that's another layer of responsibility that we have for their situation that doesn't apply to normal human decisions.
- kortilla 4y ago
  > Even though harsh circumstances might strongly influence their decision - still, it's their choice by their evaluation of the trade-offs. Not for children, members of the military, incarcerated people, people served evictions, etc.
  - gibolt 4y ago
    The rule in question for the chimps applies to the whole population, not the exceptions that mostly make sense.
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  Do humans get to choose whether they move or stay? I think there's plenty of seniors in the worst kinds of old people homes that would rather not be there.
  - bluGill 4y ago
    In the worst cases they don't have enough mind left to care. (The worst kind of places they drug them that much, otherwise the residents may or may not have enough mind to care). Above that though there is a large range. Many elderly realize they are running out of ability to care for themselves and move to some form of assisted living where help is on staff, and there are lots of people to talk to - these are generally nice places to live as they need to attract people. However as the body declines those places don't have the ability to care for you and you have to move on, and most are not willing to admit they need that level of care (and such places often are not as nice: you are forced into them instead of invited in)
  - theptip 4y ago
    Indeed, by the same argument I made above, in any situation where a human doesn't have agency in a major decision that dramatically affects their quality of life, then the decision-maker has increased moral responsibility/culpability for the outcome.
- polishdude20 4y ago
mannykannot 4y ago
There's a hypothesis that becoming relatively easy-going and respectful of others' needs and desires was an important step in our evolution. In that regard, I have seen this said: you can take a couple of hundred strangers and cram them into an airplane for twelve hours with no problem (mostly, I now have to add), but if you did this with chimpanzees it would soon become a bloodbath.
- polishdude20 4y ago
  Yeah and it's because we have a whole world of context about the place we're packed into. We know what planes are, generally how they work, generally how air travel itself works.
  - mannykannot 4y ago
    This was only offered as an illustration of the hypothesis, and it's really up to the reader to decide, from their own knowledge and intuition about human nature, whether your explanation is the whole story. Would you argue that the cases of 'air rage' that we see are due to people not knowing what planes are, or not having a general understanding of how airplanes or air travel work? It is also the case that people involuntarily placed in close confinement for long periods quite often do not start fighting among themselves even when they have no clear understanding of what is going on or what the future holds.

AlbertCory 4y ago

I had to have my 16-year-old cat put down a couple weeks ago. He had cancer. The vet was about as kind and compassionate as I could possibly wish: she even hydrated him so his last moments would be more comfortable. So I don't think it's an easy call for a judge to overrule the vets, who most likely love these animals. Chimps are vicious to each other, and especially to older chimps, as far as I know.