— FEATURED —
Making sense of the confusing Supreme Court DNA patent ruling
The 'Geisters: spooky, scary novel
Ants and Stars: Bruce Sterling and Jasmina Tesanovic visit the Sardinia Radio Telescope in Italy
The Snowden Principle
ADVERTISE AT BOING BOING!
— COMICS —
Real Stuff: The Joeist Philosophy
Brain Rot: Hip Hop Family Tree, Chuck D and Spectrum City
Tom the Dancing Bug
TOM THE DANCING BUG: Workin' in the Data Mine...
— GUATEMALA SPECIAL SERIES —
Guatemala: Genocide in Our Hemisphere—livestreamed event in D.C. today
Guatemala: Genocide in Our Hemisphere event D.C. May 29 with scholars, survivors; Xeni moderating
Photos: Throughout Latin America, protests demand justice for Guatemala after genocide trial overturned
— RECENTLY —
Carl Hiaasen's Bad Monkey
Atoms for Peace play a surprise intimate show in Los Angeles
Blunders of Genius: interesting errors by Darwin, Pauling, and Einstein
"By His Things Will You Know Him," a short story
Topsy Turvy World: surreal kids' picture book, now out in the USA
Hubsan X4 quadcopters: tiny cheap, powerful copter
Monsters and Legends: kids' monster book now in the USA!
Akissi: kids' comic about a mischievous girl in Cote D'Ivoire [now in the USA!]
A User's Guide to Neglectful Parenting, by Guy Delisle
Walking Dead 18: a magnificent villain who makes Hannibal Lecter look like Mr Rogers
— FOLLOW US —
Boing Boing is on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to our RSS feed or daily email.
— POLICIES —
Except where indicated, Boing Boing is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution
— FONTS —
Rob Beschizza at 1:02 pm Fri, Nov 16, 2012
Duh, just incorporate.
The upside of not being legally classified as people is that animals aren’t bound by our laws either. That’s why apes can get away with masturbating in public.
if we classify whales and octopuses as persons do we start locking up whales for murdering octopuses?
maybe thats how we can keep sea world stocked with whales ‘this isn’t an animal park, its a prison for persons who are murderers”
And when the elephants are granted the right to vote, is it a foregone conclusion that they’ll all just side with the Republicans?
Well I guess this is one time when having a highly endangered elephant population is okay.
Too many single, working moms among them.
Justifiable homicide; the whales were defending themselves from starvation.
seems kind of extreme
Seems pretty unworkable. From a legal perspective a chimp is (a) completely able to survive on its own in the wild and has full capacity in its own society, but (b) would have profound disabilities with an appointed guardian in a human context. If the perceived benefit is that we will treat animals better, pass animal protection laws. Making them equivalent to people with profound disabilities is not going to make that happen.
It’s jarring to see that article posted the day after BP pleads guilty to 11 counts of manslaughter. Many of the arguments against granting personhood to non-human species are just as valid against granting personhood to corporations, yet we’ve gone ahead and done that. Still, if the Pacific White-Sided Dolphin species were to incorporate, who would choose their board of directors?
When we can we marry one?
The Republican slippery slope argument was right! Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!
Last week a Brazilian writer from the “Veja” magazine just made a similar comparison, but with goats; something in the lines of “Gay people can’t marry as people can’t marry goats too”. So, that’s *not* a hypothetical joke!
Animals are people.
I love how we put the onus of personhood on other animals, who just happen to be the victims. It would be easier to define being human as ‘not killing shit for funsies’.
Personhood implies not just protection, but also responsibility for one’s actions. I don’t know of anyone other than humans who can take on full human responsibility. I think declaring animals need “personhood” is likely to turn off more people than it is to recruit. It is fiction to call an animal that can’t negotiate, follow rules, or communicate with us a “person”. They don’t need person protections and responsibilities They need protection specific to situation.
What makes more sense is to give higher order animals more protection in the way you protect any aspect of the environment. We already do to a large extent. It is trivial to get the thumbs up to test on a cockroach, but you have to jump through some very serious hoops to do medical testing on primates.
I’m not against examining greater protection for higher ordered animals, but the “personhood” rout is just extremist sounding fiction that is more likely to do these animals more harm than good.
My standard poodle wants rights, but not responsibilities. Damn freeloader is too young to vote anyway.
I’ve often thought that treating animals as if they have human rights just invites the state to treat humans like animals.
Sounds like the Uplift Wars have begun.
A lot of comments here are ignoring the difference between the status of person and the biological label of ‘human’. Personhood does not imply the responsibility of abiding by human laws – it merely delineates a moral status.
Regardless of the problems associated with this path, if certain animal species clearly match our criteria for personhood (not humanity, personhood), then it simply the right thing to do to face reality and give them that status. The ethical implications of that status must then be dealt with and enshrined into law.
Calling the personhood route ‘fiction’ is simply uninformed. The science and ethics behind these initiatives are extremely well established.