快猫短视频

Reaching for the right words (Image: Jean-Luc Chapin/Agence VU/Camera Press)

LAST month, a New York court ruled that Hercules and Leo, two research chimps at Stony Brook University, . But the fact that such a case made it through the courts at all shows our new willingness to consider the issue of personhood for other species. 鈥淓fforts to extend legal rights to chimpanzees鈥� are understandable; some day they may even succeed,鈥� wrote judge Barbara Jaffe.

Steven Wise, a lawyer at the Florida-based Nonhuman Rights Project, which brought the lawsuit, argues that if chimps are declared legal persons, they should be granted rights to protect their fundamental interests. 鈥淭hat would certainly include bodily liberty and likely bodily integrity as well,鈥� he says. We could no longer keep chimps in captivity, never mind subject them to intrusive experimental procedures.

If chimps were given rights, we might expect other intelligent species, such as killer whales and elephants, to follow. But why stop there? Our ideas about the inner lives of other animals 鈥� their capacity for suffering, autonomy and self-awareness 鈥� are based largely on analogy with ourselves: how would we like it in their place?

But what if those animals could tell us? What if a dog or dairy cow could let us know how it felt about its lot in life? The idea may not be as far-fetched as it seems. There are many examples of communication between apes and their human keepers. Researchers are busy decoding dolphin. And cognitive scientists are beginning to study emotional states in animals. It may only be a matter of time before more meaningful communication between species is possible.

Would we still eat meat once that happens? If we could converse with pigs, say, how could we justify slaughtering them by the billion, however humanely? And where should the line be redrawn? Would we still eat fish? Many of us might shun meat and animal products entirely.

Widespread legal rights for animals would affect environmental efforts too. Conservationists would have to put down the gun, says biologist , formerly of the University of Colorado in Boulder. Right now, most people take a utilitarian view, considering it acceptable to kill members of one species to save another or to safeguard an ecosystem. 鈥淏ut if we accept that these animals are sentient beings and ascribe greater value to each individual鈥檚 life, you have to come up with alternative strategies,鈥� says Bekoff, a leading voice in the compassionate conservation movement. He insists that a 鈥渄o no harm鈥� approach is possible, although others argue it would make us too sentimental to do much good.

How would we weigh an animal鈥檚 life against a human one? Research on animals leads to treatments that save human lives, making a blanket ban on animal testing unlikely. But asking scientists to limit the pain and suffering they inflict will no longer be enough, says Bekoff. 快猫短视频s would have to make the case that the benefits for humans outweigh the harm to the animal. At the very least, lots more species would get their day in court.

Read more: 鈥�10 discoveries that would change everything鈥�

This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淲hat if 鈥� We learn to talk to animals?鈥�