Real Love Incorporated - Articles » That's Why We Call Them "Animals"

So the London Zoo has people on display.

I am not making this up. They have recently opened an exhibit called “Humans.” It consists of eight actual human persons, wearing fig leaves over bathing suits, sitting in a cage labeled “Warning: Humans in their Natural Environment.”

At first, the whole thing reminded me of my own college experience. My dorm room sat at the inside corner of an L-shaped building, situated so that the window was perpendicular to the student lounge window. Thus anybody sitting in the lounge had a direct view into our room. My roommate and I debated posting a sign on the window that said “Homo Sapiens in Natural Habitat.” But, as much as a dorm room may feel like a cage, it is not. Nor is a cage a “natural” environment for the species homo sapien.

Why on earth would a zoo feature an exhibit full of caged humans? After all, the whole idea of a zoo is to see something we don’t see every day. And I don’t know about you, but I see plenty of people in the average day.

But no, the point of this exhibit is to make a “statement.” According to London Zoo spokeswoman Polly Wills, “Seeing people in a different environment, among other animals . . . teaches members of the public that the human is just another primate.”

Tom Mahoney, one of the eight fig-leaf clad participants, agrees. “A lot of people think humans are above other animals,” he told the Associated Press. “When they see humans as animals, here, it kind of reminds us that we’re not that special.”

Okay, I have a bit of a problem with this.

Are we really no different from the rest of the primates? Are we just another species that crawled out of the primordial soup – no better or worse than a chimp or a dolphin?

The first clue would be in the “natural habitat.” Our homo sapien friends, according to reports, are being treated like the rest of the “animals,” given treats to keep them amused in their cage. What keeps the homo sapiens amused? Music, paints, and board games.

Board games? Do any of the other “species” play board games? Call me naļve, but I’m pretty sure a gorilla would sooner eat a checkerboard than set it up to play a round.

And then there’s the issue of the fig leaves. Zoo officials said the participants were covered up to protect their “modesty.” Really? What other species worries about modesty? We think it’s cute to see a monkey wearing a dress, but it’s hardly required attire.

Obviously it doesn’t take a genius to see the enormous chasm between the human person and the rest of the animal kingdom. How many cities have animals built? (And no, Planet of the Apes doesn’t count.) How many operas have they written? How many profound ideas have they advanced?

Of course, we all know the familiar retort, “And how many wars have animals started? How many genocides have they engineered. Animals are inherently good. People aren’t.”

This all may seem like silliness, but there is a very important, and pervasive, philosophy behind this exhibit – the philosophy that human persons are no more or less valuable than animals. This type of thinking, as talk show host Dennis Prager points out, is one of the fruits of a “secular” society. And we can look forward to more of this type of silliness as our culture becomes increasingly secular.

The primary difference between animals and persons is not that we can compose music or build houses. The primary difference is that each human person carries within him the image and likeness of God. We are created, uniquely and individually, by Him. We have been given a higher intellect, yes, but also a free will. We can direct our own lives. We can choose good or evil -- to love God or to reject Him.

Animals kill animals. Sometimes animals kill people. And sometimes people kill people. The difference is, the animal isn’t held morally responsible for killing. He has no choice. He operates on instinct. We don’t. We are held morally liable for our acts because we choose our acts deliberately. We exist on a different moral plane than the animals.

The earth was not created for the earth’s sake, or for the animals’ sake. It was created for man’s sake, and the animals were given to man as a resource and a gift. Certainly, we have a responsibility toward animals. We are not to be unnecessarily cruel to them.

But we should never, never promote the idea that the animals are our equals. They are not. They have no higher reason, no eternal soul and no free will.

That’s why we call them “animals.”


	That's Why We Call Them "Animals" The London Zoo is putting people in cages. Apparently they're trying to make a point. August 28, 2005 So the London Zoo has people on display. I am not making this up. They have recently opened an exhibit called “Humans.” It consists of eight actual human persons, wearing fig leaves over bathing suits, sitting in a cage labeled “Warning: Humans in their Natural Environment.” At first, the whole thing reminded me of my own college experience. My dorm room sat at the inside corner of an L-shaped building, situated so that the window was perpendicular to the student lounge window. Thus anybody sitting in the lounge had a direct view into our room. My roommate and I debated posting a sign on the window that said “Homo Sapiens in Natural Habitat.” But, as much as a dorm room may feel like a cage, it is not. Nor is a cage a “natural” environment for the species homo sapien. Why on earth would a zoo feature an exhibit full of caged humans? After all, the whole idea of a zoo is to see something we don’t see every day. And I don’t know about you, but I see plenty of people in the average day. But no, the point of this exhibit is to make a “statement.” According to London Zoo spokeswoman Polly Wills, “Seeing people in a different environment, among other animals . . . teaches members of the public that the human is just another primate.” Tom Mahoney, one of the eight fig-leaf clad participants, agrees. “A lot of people think humans are above other animals,” he told the Associated Press. “When they see humans as animals, here, it kind of reminds us that we’re not that special.” Okay, I have a bit of a problem with this. Are we really no different from the rest of the primates? Are we just another species that crawled out of the primordial soup – no better or worse than a chimp or a dolphin? The first clue would be in the “natural habitat.” Our homo sapien friends, according to reports, are being treated like the rest of the “animals,” given treats to keep them amused in their cage. What keeps the homo sapiens amused? Music, paints, and board games. Board games? Do any of the other “species” play board games? Call me naļve, but I’m pretty sure a gorilla would sooner eat a checkerboard than set it up to play a round. And then there’s the issue of the fig leaves. Zoo officials said the participants were covered up to protect their “modesty.” Really? What other species worries about modesty? We think it’s cute to see a monkey wearing a dress, but it’s hardly required attire. Obviously it doesn’t take a genius to see the enormous chasm between the human person and the rest of the animal kingdom. How many cities have animals built? (And no, Planet of the Apes doesn’t count.) How many operas have they written? How many profound ideas have they advanced? Of course, we all know the familiar retort, “And how many wars have animals started? How many genocides have they engineered. Animals are inherently good. People aren’t.” This all may seem like silliness, but there is a very important, and pervasive, philosophy behind this exhibit – the philosophy that human persons are no more or less valuable than animals. This type of thinking, as talk show host Dennis Prager points out, is one of the fruits of a “secular” society. And we can look forward to more of this type of silliness as our culture becomes increasingly secular. The primary difference between animals and persons is not that we can compose music or build houses. The primary difference is that each human person carries within him the image and likeness of God. We are created, uniquely and individually, by Him. We have been given a higher intellect, yes, but also a free will. We can direct our own lives. We can choose good or evil -- to love God or to reject Him. Animals kill animals. Sometimes animals kill people. And sometimes people kill people. The difference is, the animal isn’t held morally responsible for killing. He has no choice. He operates on instinct. We don’t. We are held morally liable for our acts because we choose our acts deliberately. We exist on a different moral plane than the animals. The earth was not created for the earth’s sake, or for the animals’ sake. It was created for man’s sake, and the animals were given to man as a resource and a gift. Certainly, we have a responsibility toward animals. We are not to be unnecessarily cruel to them. But we should never, never promote the idea that the animals are our equals. They are not. They have no higher reason, no eternal soul and no free will. That’s why we call them “animals.”