The Planet of Which Apes Exactly?

Authors Avatar

The Planet of Which Apes Exactly?

By: Emmanuel Perez

For: Aurora Flewwelling-Skup

Date: 10/30/2003

The Planet of Which Apes Exactly?

  You have David Suzuki on one side, and Frederic A. King on the other.  One’s a renowned and ardent defender of nature’s interests, and the other’s a neuroscientist, director of Emory University’s primate research centre, and an adherent of animal research and experimentation. Naturally, Suzuki’s “The Pain of Animals” and King’s “Animals in Research: The Case of Experimentation” contrast in the gist of their respective arguments, specifically on the topic of humans’ rights over animals, but also on their views of the opposing arguments, but can still be considered similar in style, in this case in their appeal to our sensitivity.  In his plea against the liberal use of animals for basic research and experimentation, David Suzuki denounces humans’ “sacrifice” of animals, to advance their own cause.  Throughout his essay, he reminds us that animals are “living beings” and that they have shown an ability to feel pain and emotions.  In that aspect, he thinks the animal species is no different than men, and that it’s no coincidence that men have designated animals as their tool of choice for research: it is because we resemble them so much.  As for Frederic King, he believes that although animals should be treated with consideration, on the basis of their sense of pain and emotion, they should not be put on the same pedestal as humans.  Therefore, it is our right to put them to the contribution of humanity’s evolvement, which they have been doing very successfully.  He states that, most of the time, animals are the only possible option to go forth with experimentation.  In the following lines, my focus will be on both authors’ use of argumentum ad hominen, their playing on feelings, their level of consideration for the opposing side’s views and opinions, and their perception of man’s place in nature.

  First of all, we notice that both authors, as an argumentative technique, try to appeal to our sensitivity, even though they use it both to different degrees.  The core of David Suzuki’s perennial cries for help, in this essay more specifically, is the underlining of the pain humanity can inflict on animals.  Through the use of different anecdotes, he explains how far we have gone in taking advantage of animals.  He tells us about the time he went fishing in the Catskills Mountains of New York state, where you are under the obligation to throw back the fish you catch, and how fish he caught had their “mouths gouged and pocked by previous encounters with hooks.”  Such vivid and gruesome images are given throughout his testimony.  He does not hesitate to recall, in an almost Disney-like fashion, personal examples of instances when animals we’ve traditionally seen as friendly and vulnerable, have suffered:  “The squirrel began to cry” or “…seized the fingers of their liberators and clung to them as our babies would to us.” Furthermore, in that last quote, cited by Mr Suzuki, but originally from the mythical and well-liked chimpanzee expert Jane Goodall, he was blatantly soliciting our natural attachment and instinctive propensity to protect babies.

Join now!

  As for Frederic King, to convince us of the benefits of experimental research on animals, he also chooses to try to appeal to our “soft spot,” although to a lesser extent.  When specifying the advantages it presents for human beings, he exhaustively lists the people in our society who are in dire need of help, vulnerable people, people we want to help, whom we sympathize it, that we relate to easily: “In the case of paralyzed patients, it [enables] those who could otherwise have to spend their lives lying down to sit upright.”  He also mentions the case of ...

This is a preview of the whole essay