Garmincure3 Execution

An anonymous reader writes 'A Brazilian court has already issued a. And now an Austrian court may well with what have been called human rights.'

From the story in the Guardian/Observer: 'He recognizes himself in the mirror, plays hide-and-seek and breaks into fits of giggles when tickled. He is also our closest evolutionary cousin.

Slowtwitch including bike shops, coaches, fitters, race calendar, stores, training, and triathlon forums. Live Commercials Return to TV. Then prescribing them Garmin GPS devices as a cure. Break immediately following execution of the live commercial to deliver.

A group of world leading primatologists argue that this is proof enough that Hiasl, a 26-year-old chimpanzee, deserves to be treated like a human. In a test case in Austria, campaigners are seeking to ditch the 'species barrier' and have taken Hiasl's case to court. If Hiasl is granted human status — and the rights that go with it — it will signal a victory for other primate species and unleash a wave of similar cases.'

'Rights come with responsibilities' is such an irritating sound-bite meme that doesn't really carry any meaning. Responsibilities are whatever burdens society deems fit to leverage on you that you are unable or not interested in removing. Rights are whatever freedoms society either grants you or that you have managed to claim and defend. I, personally, don't see the connection between the two. I don't 'purchase' my right to life by paying my taxes.

Funny, he's right for the wrong reasons and you're wrong for the right ones. Rights come with corresponding responsibilities, by definition. The right to life means you do not have the right to take the life of another. This means you have a responsibility to not take the life of another. The same is true with all rights: speech, property, religion, etc.

If you are going to grant chimps the right to live without being murdered, you must admit that chimps do not have the right to kill one another. Government Laws are _completely_ arbitrary, and I am under no obligation to follow a bad law, even if the law imposes penalties. An interesting point. To take it one stage further - sometimes breaking the law on purpose is fully justified.

Who would nowadays look back and accuse the Suffragettes of being unreasonable by breaking the law to protest illegaly, given than women were denied the vote? Or who would like to step up and say that Rosa Parks should have moved to the back of the bus?

I suppose that the. I don't know if Chimps should have human rights. I think what we need to do is research that does work to gauge how well chimps could cope in human society when raised in that society and how intelligent they can then become. Then compare that with the lowest human being and work your way up through the human being scale (if the chimp is better then the lowest human beings we have) until we find a type of human (most likely suffering some form of mental retardation) that is comparable with your average chimp.

I think the problem with this is we really have to ask what does it *mean* to be a 'person'. Lets drop the word 'human' and use 'person', and *why* do we consider 'people' to be so important. Lets take the example of someone so profoundly brain damaged that they walk about with a knife and stab someone thinking that person is a loaf of bread. Generally most reasonable minded people accept that as sad as it is, the person with the knife simply is not capable of aprehending the responsibility of not stabbing the person, as its understood that to enact a responsibility, you have to be rational enough to understand it. So instead we might put the crazy person in some sort of care with some protections to make sure they cant do it, but we are not *punishing* them for failing that responsibility, because we understand they are incapable of fullfilling it.

But that doesnt mean the crazy person doesnt have some basic rights, such as the right to life, or the right to not be beaten up or whatever. Rights dont necesarily justify an ability to understand them to be valid. Responsibilitys do, because I'd argue rights are passive and responsibilitys are active. Not ALL rights are removed from responsibility admitedly. Someone crazy enough to think its ok to shoot people for lols SHOULDNT have a gun. But someone with the rationality to be responsible with the gun arguably SHOULD have the right (assuming you think its a good right).

Now, lets look at the monkey. The monkey has a bunch of attributes we associate with personhood. They appear to be self aware. They appear to possess a basic level of empathy. They can, with the correct training, communicate basic abstract concepts. They fall in love, and love to fuck. They get angry and hate on stuff.

Pretty much stuff 'people' do. But they cant read a book, or drive a car (perhaps) or hold down a steady job, or surf the net.

But many 'people' cant do this either. Infants cant. People with profound downs syndrome cant either, but we'd never deny them personhood.

Peter singer (slightly contraversial australian philosopher) argues the capacity for suffering is a pretty good determinant for judging the right to moral consideration, and who'd deny a monkeys capacity to suffer. I'd suggest whilst the full range of 'human' rights would not fully be apropriate for monkeys, as they cant cope with the responsibilitys or understand them (although arming chimps WOULD be hilarious at a distance), we can certainly derive a subset of rights they should be able to expect (the right to life, the right not to be tortured, the right for a human advocate to sue on their behalf for loss of rights, etc) based on the facts at hand. If, as many scientists believe, chimps experience the world with similar emotional colour to us, vivisection and shit really does become an horrible horrible thing to contemplate empathetically. Give the fuzzy guys some rights! I'd suggest whilst the full range of 'human' rights would not fully be apropriate for monkeys, as they cant cope with the responsibilitys or understand them (although arming chimps WOULD be hilarious at a distance), we can certainly derive a subset of rights they should be able to expect (the right to life, the right not to be tortured, the right for a human advocate to sue on their behalf for loss of rights, etc) based on the facts at hand.

Chimps are chimps. They don't want to be people, they want to be chimps. The only right we need to grant them is the right to be chimps in peace.

It has nothing to do with their capability, that's a red herring. They're chimps. Highly intelligent, self-aware, sentient if you ask me (but don't ask me to define it), and also not human. They're chimps.

Anthropomorphizing them and asking if they should be considered 'people', or comparing them to disabled humans, is to violate their right to be chimps. So as far as I'm concerned, it's very clear. We shouldn't be performing medical experiments or capturing or hunting chimps or destroying their habitat (more), but that's it. That's all they need. We just need to start respecting the other life forms on this planet, not dressing them up in suits and expecting them to be people.

They won't be, don't want to be, and are just fine as they are. So as far as I'm concerned, it's very clear. We shouldn't be performing medical experiments or capturing or hunting chimps or destroying their habitat (more), but that's it. That's all they need. We just need to start respecting the other life forms on this planet, not dressing them up in suits and expecting them to be people.

They won't be, don't want to be, and are just fine as they are. The real question being debated here is not if chimps are humans, but if they are deserving of a given set of rights/protections. It is fine to say that we should respect life forms, but it is a matter of degrees and based upon qualities. If I'm hungry should I be able to kill a human and eat them? What about a chimp? What about a cow?

What about a banana? What about yogurt? What quality of these life forms makes them deserving of legal protection from my hunger? What if I need an organ transplant to survive? What animal would not be acceptable to kill to preserve my own life even if it is not threatening me?

Personally, I consider all life to be similar in certain ways. I consider animals to be more akin to humans (or vice versus) than most people seem to assume. Animals have emotions and thoughts along the same lines as humans, but to differing degrees. To some degree their similarity to humans is considered as a criteria, but I think that fails if you look at it from a scientific perspective.

Intelligence is a somewhat valid criteria, but I don't see it as the only one necessary for something to be deserving of 'rights.' Usually in my personal life I consider rights to be related directly to responsibility. Anything that takes responsibility, has the right to manage that responsibility, but must also deal with the consequences. When rights conflict, it is usually the responsibility portion of the equation that clarifies the situation. If a human 'baby' is born without a brain, it's a human. By extending human rights on the basis of manifest intelligence alone you either end up in the lawyer driven hellscape of genetically modified sheep, mice, even rocks being people, or the eugenic distopia of a more sanitary version of ancient Sparta. I endorse the latter (though I wouldn't call it so).

A brainless (anencephalic, technically) human baby is genetically human, but it (no, nor he or she: it) shouldn't be really considered human. It's a mindless body -basically, it's meat. Sorry for the rudeness, but technically it's nothing different. To me, rights should follow ALSO from mental capabilities. No being should suffer if it's not necessary, but why can we do medical experiments -and thus cause sufference- on well aware, thinking, self conscious chimps and we cannot do them on mindless human bodies (that wouldn't practically suffer)? To me it's pure non sense. So maybe find a balance by allowing chimps juvenile rights.

You basically say that they do have a moderate amount of mental capacity, but can't, without a legal guardian, join society on the basis that they can't function as adults within this society. If at a later date, this is disproven, it's not very difficult to expand on the law, granting them full legal privledges. They show behavior that parallels childrens, give them that degree of rights. If they as a species can then show that they also can handle adult. I think we should be equally outraged at the prospect of elevating apes into that same subhuman role.

They would probably experience a richer life than common apes nonetheless, provided they are of course treated with care and they have basic rights to rest, eat, be healthy and free time to play. I remember that in the scifi book Rendez-vous with Rama of A.C.Clarke similar beings were engineered for janitorial tasks on spaceships. They were subhumans, yes, but they were extremly respected because of. Seriously, it's not either. I might as well say that I'm not going to work for women's rights or minority rights until all the problems of the straight white man are solved. There is nothing about animal suffering that is great for humanity.

I think that granting rights to certain primates is problematic, but not in the same way you do. I think it's a problem to give animals rights based on their likeness to us on non-relevant criteria. The only thing that matters is their sentience. See [blogspot.com].

Your empathy and mine are placed on different subjects, you feel for possibly sentient beings which is commendable. I feel for beings known to be sentient beyond doubt. No one who ever had a clue would doubt animals are sentient. It's more about being responsible to save your own species before saving someone else's.

Rats are also sentient, but if they cause damage in my house, I'd still poison them. Life is cruel, the better one survive, but. Please don't put it this low to doubt if mammals that share over. Nah man, it's easier to tell other people what they should be doing than to do it yourself.

I watched a tv program the other day (that's easy too) about a guy who just woke up one day and said 'I'm going to quit my job and start a charity'. He told his wife and she said 'if you think we can, I'll do everything I can to help'. They took all the food out of their kitchen pantry, put it in a cane basket and went down the pub to raffle it off. People bought the tickets because it was 'for charity'.

With the money they bought more cane baskets and more food and did it again, and again. I live in Australia, and like many parts of the world we're going through a drought. This guy went out to farms and gave farmers some food to keep them going, etc. He went out to cattle farms where the cattle were getting really skinny due to a lack of grass and bought them hay. One of the farms he went out to was struggling not just because of lack of feed, but also because of lack of labour. I thought his solution to this was phenomonal.

He went back to the city and found a half dozen homeless young guys and convinced them to come out and work on the farm. Everyone who says 'there's nothing I can do' and has a big bleeding heart for all the pain and suffering in the world then goes back to posting on Slashdot.

There is something you can do. You can dedicate your life to helping people and making it easy for other people to help people. You choose not to. So don't cry about it, live with it.

You're joking, but you hit on a salient point. Whether chimps should have more rights than something stupid like a cow is an important question, just like whether a cow should have more rights than a cockroach. I think it's pretty ridiculous to expect the same rights to be given a chimp as you give to a human, though. Rights come with responsibilities as well. You certainly wouldn't expect a chimp to be able to understand the law and understand the consequences of things such as the aforementioned flinging poo at people. If a chimp can sue me for abusing it, then I damn sure better be able to sue the chimp for abusing me.

Could you imagine someone at the zoo suing a monkey for throwing shit at them? To anyone paying attention, that's pretty god damn ridiculous. Besides, what the hell is the point in chimps even having rights like freedom of speech and freedom of religion? Obviously they don't need them, so it's pretty ridiculous to claim that they should have them. If they don't even have the ability to exercise natural rights, they probably don't have them. Besides, what the hell is the point in chimps even having rights like freedom of speech and freedom of religion? If they had no capacity to exercise the right (a questionable supposition, chimps can learn rudimentary human sign language and express preferences with it, which is all that is necessary to exercise free expression) there would be no effect at all (and thus no harm) in granting it to them.

If they have the capacity, there is clearly a point in protecting them for punishment for pure exercise of that capacity. By that standard, shouldn't people, say, in vegitative states or with extreme cases of metal retardation be legally not human, and therefore eligible for the hot dog machine? On Penn & Teller's Bullshiat, a show with many many many subtle flaws despite it's many many many good parts, they once had a little bit in the PeTA piece about how if animals have rights, then therefore they should have responsibilities. When I first heard this I thought at first that this was just a bit of flat humor, but then it occurred to me that this was actually a very powerful argument. Fine - if the primate deserves equal protection under law, then he should get equal treatment under law as far as paying taxes, sending his offspring to school, not assaulting people by climbing on them, being hygenic, etc. Generally Chimpanzees are considered on par with the intellegence of a five year old child. Can you imagine having this discusion about the rights of a five year old child?

Would anyone ever consider medical experiments reasonable on a five year old child? Yes they aren't human but genetically they are close.

What if we do meet a more intellegent race? Is it okay to experiment on them and detain them simply because they aren't human? Certain rights should be expanded to include both less intellegent species as well as more intelllegent species. Whales, Dolphins and Great Apes should arguably have some basic rights as sentient beings. There are no generalizable social benefits from bestowing chimps with human rights. Here's a thought: Allowing animals to be abused, imprisoned, and generally shat upon creates a culture of acceptance of casual, utilitarian violence. While we do draw a pretty stark line between humans and other species, it could be argued that a society which is disrespectful of the 'rights' of animals is especially vulnerable to treating each other badly.

It's called 'dehumanization' for a reason. One group of people.

Brazilian judicial system is similar to the U.S. One, each judge has the final say over his jurisdiction. Despite of that, Brazil is ruled by civil law, not common law, so the decision of that judge is completely irrelevant for jurisprudence. There are a lot of judicial activism there too, so it is not rare (but it still weird) that a judge bias can affect the decision, on this case, an animal right defensor judge accepting an animal as a litigant, back in the seventies, a judge acquitted a man that was on trial for murder accepting a witness statement from the dead friend which he had communicated telepathically with a [guardian.co.uk]. Despite of those aberrations, judicial system in Brazil is not that ridiculous. It is massively slow and a lot of times unjust, but we are not near to give animals (or companies, for all that matters) full rights of a natural person.

One common mistake is to view different species as their own independent and crisply defined sets. This is at odds with the reality of evolution, which is a continuous process. There are many examples of [wikipedia.org].

This isn't the case for humans and chimps, but it illustrates the problem of dividing up species. If we go by similarity to humans - we are apes. African apes, to be specific. That means that chimps are closer relatives to us than say orangutans are to chimps.

The intermediate stages from the common ancestor to the human and chimp branches are extinct, but that's just a coincidence, something that could have been the other way around. Looking at it that way the ethical questions become more difficult. When you can't define clear groups, the in-group/out-group ethics becomes difficult to rationalize.

Rather than an ethics based on questionable categories we need one based on functions - especially cognitive capabilities relating to suffering. When it comes to chimpanzees an the other great apes, the answer is very clear - we do need to give them rights.

They may not understand it themselves, but neither do human children and we offer them rights and protection. Apes are a trivial problem - it becomes more difficult when you distance yourself further.

What about cats, mice or even insects or one-celled organisms? It's more complicated. Especially when it comes to the issue killing other humans, where there probably are some rahter hardwired genetic moral safeguards in place against arbitrary killing (Non-arbitrary killing is another story entirely.) You seem to think morality should be independent from practical considerations - which is fine, if you presume morality to have some sort of metaphysical foundation. God) Now, I don't think so - which leads me to believe that the system of morality enforced in soci.

I do not believe chimps should have human rights, but that we should improve the rights of all animals. It seems us humans see animals as. Well animals. We often forget these are things with feelings and emotions just like we do.

We should never think of killing another human because 'that's wrong' but at the same time we rarely think twice about killing hundreds of animals for the sake of cheap wood or because some stupid reason like 'I hate bugs'. Basicly we're that asshole kid who runs around hitting everyone and it's about time we faced up to this, we scream and shout about global warming while at the same time completely missing the little picture where we're wiping out entire species of animals because we can't use basic birth control and have an over populated planet in some areas. I want to point out right now I'am not some nutter who runs around bombing animal testing labs. I accept some things must be done such as conservation and culling of over populations in the animal world.

This while not pleasent if something we need to do to keep a balance in wild life, I would not wish to stop it nor would I ever attempt to. Yes, we should be kinder to animals, in general. If we kill them, we should at least have a reason, if not a good one. That is, if you go hunting deer for sport, at least make venison out of them.

I have no problem with killing cows for beef, but certainly we should think twice about killing an animal, or an entire ecosystem, just to get some more wood or make room for another supermall. On the other hand, bugs don't even have brains, as we know them. I'll have to check my sources, but I strongly doubt they. So you're putting the life of a dung beetle on the same level as the life of a human being. Will the insanity never stop? I sense irony here. The faculty which is most often cited in humanity's moral superiority to other animals is reason.

The GP post is attackable and defensible on several grounds. It may be wrong, but it is reasonable -- in the sense that it has content to which the faculty of reason can be applied. Setting up a straw man representation of the argument, then calling that straw man. They damn sure recognize themselves in a mirror, they fully understand what a mirror is and play games in the mirror. The make will sit in front of the mirror and look me directly in the eye via the reflection, he likes doing that. And he knows it's a reflection because as I move my hand up behind his head, he can see my hand in the mirror and he'll tip his head back to meet my hand. And he coordinates it perfectly.

He really, fully understand what a reflection is and how they work and he enjoys playing mirror games. They also play hide and seek and are smart enough to anticipate what the other will do and make strategic counter moves to 'cut em off at the pass' when playing in the yard. And they enjoy being petted and tickled, that's obvious to anyone with a brain. And they even have favorite words. Like my puppy, when I call her by her regular name she responds and comes, sits, stays, etc.

But when I call her 'wiggly dog' she explodes into a fit of tail wagging like you've never seen, she wags her entire body, like a snake wiggling on the ground. You can tell she takes extreme pleasure in being called 'wiggly dog'. The male, his favorite thing is when I call him 'big dog', he gets all excited about that just like the puppy. My dogs are intelligent.

I demand they get equal rights too damn it! There are quite a few faulty assumptions regarding human rights and whether animals should have them: first, there seems to be a confusion between what it means to be a human being as opposed to animal (as a general rule), and what makes humans valuable. It is not because humans can laugh, think, etc. That they are valuable. Else, as soon as you are sedated, you'd stop being human because you wouldn't have those characteristics anymore. Humans are intrinsically valuable (their rights come from natural law), and an animal can never be biologically human. Second, it is always quite dangerous to start defining what you 'need' to be a human being.

Think about slavery, most genocides,etc. What happened is that some people decided to use arbitrarily defined criteria to strip people from their human status.

Who says the criteria animal rights activists use are correct? Third, why do they believe that chimps should have the same rights as humans. It is as logical to say that human beings should have the same rights chimps enjoy presently (i.e. The very idea of human rights is based on the premise that there is something intrinsically valuable in human beings, regardless of their mental capacities or physical abilities.

Interesting arguement. This is a smart chimp so it should have human rights.

This suggests human rights are dependent on intelligence. Logically they should also argue stupid people should NOT have human rights. Unborn children, those in persistent vegetative states are also arguably not worthy of human rights either.

Perhaps even babies aren't smart enough to have human rights either. Also bestiality couldn't be illegal as marriage is a human right. Or perhaps certain humans aren't deserving of all human rights. Different rights for certain types of people. Maybe some groups shouldn't get to vote, and other groups should be slaves, or simply executed to protect the rest of us?

Human rights are for the human species. Animal rights are for other animals. What's really wrong with that? Logically they should also argue stupid people should NOT have human rights. Unborn children, those in persistent vegetative states are also arguably not worthy of human rights either. Perhaps even babies aren't smart enough to have human rights either. Your past point is interesting, because if we were to take a step outside our species for a second, by a standard of rational thought an intelligence, there's no reason to value a human baby over that of a chimp unless we bet on its presumed, but unknown, future potential.

It's quite possible that a proper definition of what a human being 'is' would disqualify fetuses and some babies. I don't think fear of that should necessarily stop us from defining it anyway. We can find other reasons to keep our kids around, like, say, because we love them.

The very fact that the issue is being discussed seriously is shocking. I dunno if the article is 01.April joke or not, but apparently many people hold the opinion that an animal species can have human-like rights. Which is ridiculous, perplexing, and sad at the same time; a tell-tale sign of decadence. As many pointed out, rights go together with responsibilities. Can you hold a chimp responsible for a crime, then? Full Hd Movies Free Download Hollywood more. Apparently not. FYI, occasionally chimps kill other apes (bonobos) and eat them.

Do you seriously propose that chimps are tried and sent to jail for premeditated murder/bonobo-slaughter/cannibalism-of-some-sort? Trying to extend what is now human rights to not only apes but all animals (I can see efforts in that direction) leads automatically to paradoxes: animals kill each other all the time, that's the way life is. Believing in so called 'animal right to life' implies (in case the person believing in it is consistent and smart, which is seldom the case) automatically that all the predators and omnivores are criminals. Furthermore, many (most?) carnivores cannot possibly survive without eating other animals; so, if the spider kills a fly, it is a criminal, but if you deny the spider its prey it (the spider) will die, so indirectly you become a criminal. Some common sense is needed to stop the non-sense.

A chimpanzee should not have HUMAN rights YES, a chimpanzee has rights as a living thing and deserves some legal protections. But not, in any way, HUMAN rights i passed an animal rights activist on the street the other day, and she had a t-shirt that read 'animals are people too' no. No how but her t-shirt does just about sums up the essential disconnect between reality and delusion going on here: YES, animals deserve some protections from suffering. Yes, cruel treatment against ANY life form is incompatible with any sense of morality. Yes, yes, yes but NO: the rights of animals NEVER rise to that of your fellow human beings that's the line in the sand the rights if animals are not zero. But the rights of animals also do not rise to the rights of your fellow human beings that's the only common sense reality on the subject matter. Okay, this might sound like a troll, but hear me out.

I'm not interested in getting into a discussion about abortion, but it makes a pertinent example, regardless of whether you are opposed to it or not. I have a hard time believing that chimps would be granted any rights in today's society, especially considering that roughly half of the population argues in favor of a woman's 'right' to have her unborn child killed. If the rights of an unborn human child are so small that they may be outweighed by the convenience of the mother, I fail to see how a chimp's right to life would ever take precedence over the possible value of the medical research obtained. Abortion doesn't cure disease - in fact, it is, more or less, last-resort birth control. If you can't convince society to respect human life, I doubt you'll be able to convince them that medical research should be halted so that chimps can be spared. After all, at least the medical research has the potential of providing cures for disease someday.

I'm not trying to troll here - you can believe what you want with respect to the merits of abortion. That's not the issue. The issue is that in order to convince people to give animals the same rights as humans, you are going to have to offer a compelling case for doing so. People (sadly) aren't interested in the moral arguments, and the arguments against giving animals rights are strong: • Be prepared to be called an enemy of science. Much scientific and medical research depends on using animal subjects. • Be prepared to be called uncompassionate toward humans - after all, without animal subjects, you delay the cures for things like cancer.

• Be prepared to be called a corporate shill or anti-environmentalist. Because many chemicals are discovered toxic by testing on animals first, the lack of testing would allow corporations even greater freedom to dump environmentally damaging chemicals into the environment. • Be prepared to be accused of attempting to force your private morality on the public. • Lastly, why would we grant rights to animals when we are taking them away from humans? Things like the elimination of habeas corpus, government sponsored torture, indefinite detention, mandatory abortion, and summary execution, etc.

Are all on the horizon and are far more pressing issues than that of animal rights. It isn't an easy subject to take on. Granted, we shouldn't ever intentionally inflict pain on living things, but then, how would we eat?

There are vitamins and minerals our bodies need which are only present in living things. So without a binding set of moral principles, the debate is going to remain centered around the pragmatic aspects, and I doubt this will result in any action being taken. After all, the Democrats successfully convinced Americans that it is wrong to 'imposing your private view of morality on the general public'. Given this is considered evil, how could one convince the general public that your particular moral imperative applies to the public at large?

Isn't religion supposed to be a private thing now? (I suppose we could get involved in the related discussion about private versus public morality, and how law reflects the morality of the public at large, for better or for worse.). I have a hard time believing that chimps would be granted any rights in today's society, especially considering that roughly half of the population argues in favor of a woman's 'right' to have her unborn child killed. If the rights of an unborn human child are so small that they may be outweighed by the convenience of the mother, I fail to see how a chimp's right to life would ever take precedence over the possible value of the medical research obtained. For me, a chimp has a lot more qualities that make it deserving of protection than an embryo.

A chimp has a brain and thoughts and feelings and experiences and interpersonal relations. An embryo has more qualities in common with wood than it does with humans. It is brainless, thoughtless, chunk of living cells.

If I were to decide which is more deserving of rights, I'd definitely choose a chimp. For that matter, cows are more deserving of protection of their life than embryos. At least cows think and have emotions and care if you kill them. If you can't convince society to respect human life, I doubt you'll be able to convince them that medical research should be halted so that chimps can be spared.

What do you mean by 'convince?' I respect life, human or otherwise, that I find deserving of that respect, based upon the qualities I value and my own ethics. Some human life is worthy of protection and some is not. If a person is born without a brain or their brain dies, I have no problem with them being killed or used in experiments, so long as that is not inflicting emotional pain on still living relatives or the like.

I can be convinced to support limited rights for chimps if it is demonstrated that they take responsibility for those rights and exercise those rights in a way that is acceptable to society. I don't see anyone ever convincing me that a mindless bundle of cells can take responsibility for anything. If you have a logical reason why you think embryos should have rights, lets hear it. But if by 'convince' you mean you want me to change my mind because you say so without a logical reason or because of an illogical reason based on emotion or your irrational and unsupported beliefs, well that isn't convincing. Lastly, why would we grant rights to animals when we are taking them away from humans? Interestingly, we're discussing law.

Theoretically, all law should be about mitigating conflicting rights between individuals. Otherwise, it is simply a matter of personal choice and is not the place of government to interfere. For example, the role of government is to decide if my right to throw rocks supersedes or is superseded by your right to own and protect your car's windshield. It is not the place of the government to decide if my throwing of rock on my own property and which does not affect anyone else is 'moral' or not. Already the rights of animals have been recognized and the law mitigates the conflict of those rights.

Laws against animal cruelty, for example, have held that an animal's right not to suffer horribly is more important than a person's right to torture said animal or own said animal. The proposed law is simply a new stratification granting more rights to a certain type of animal based upon the qualities of that animal. Whenever I think of how we kill animals, I think of a quote by Winston Churchill.

'If you're going to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.' .Or something like that. The point is, I'm not a fan of meat, but we're human, and we're omnivores.

Our bodies are designed to eat some meat. It's just a fact of life. But why do we have to do it in such horrible ways? Why aren't we banning what are clearly appalling methods of raising and slaughtering livestock? Of forcing them to live in tiny cages or pens their whole lives with not even a foot of space to move? I think all animals deserve at least a painless death, if nothing else as a right. Even when I kill a bee in what I consider self-defense, I don't want the bee to be in pain.

I just want it dead. 'Cows evolved to die. They're prey.' Cows evolved to live, it just so happens that they don't often succeed in this when pitted against certain predators. There is no fine line between predators and prey, and even humans are considered prey in some comparisons. However, another side to this coin (surprise, it isn't 2-sided), in the hybridization process the humans have 'evolved' the cows into something more suitable for the human goals.

So, yes, in a way they were evolved with a particul. All animals experience fear and pain, a calm cow is easy to handle and still just as tasty. I saw a doco once about a middle aged, mildly autistic woman who has made a fortune designing livestock yards and runs.

She had spent time on a relatives farm and noticed a similarity between the things that scare her and calm her down and things that scare/calm cows. Her talent was spotted when a company was thinking of scrapping it's yard and building a new one because the cows were constanly panicking. He thought the animals could sense their impending death, she overheard this and said 'it's too dark', opened a roller door and the cows walked in calmly. Since then she has consulted to abitors and yards all over the US, one of her inventions is the 'stairway to heaven', aparently cows prefer cow sized steps to the traditonal human centric ramps.

My point being, apart from the moral aspect of fear and pain there are also some sound economic reasons to pursue humane treatment. On the subject of chimps, IMHO they deserve to be left in relative peace but for many that also means being left in captivity.

I don't think there's anything good in harming an animal for no reason. But I don't agree with giving them any rights if it will cost humans money to do so, or if it stands in the way of research that helps a human.

All cost/benefit comparisons will have to be framed from a human perspective to affect my opinion(for example, damage to the ecology which humans dwell in). I don't care about any spiritual penalty it may have. Slippery slope stuff aside. It's an animal and I will prioritize it below the majority of humanity. I might give it a break if it's cute, but only because the cuteness is offering something to me, a human.

I'm against animal cruelty, but I've heard some damning things about Peta. Watch the [youtube.com] on them for example, and do some of your own research. Peta have links to the ALF for example, and the ALF have come close to killing humans involved in animal research. They gave [wikipedia.org] for example. [wikipedia.org], President of Peta was has been accused of having prior knowledge of ALF actions.

She was also quoted as saying 'no movement for social change has ever succeeded without 'the militarism component'. Note [m-w.com], not [m-w.com]. Seems to me you're better off joining the RSPCA / ASPCA which are against both animal cruelty and the terrorists of the ALF.

That's not such a good idea, PETA is run by insane clowns. They think their ends justify deception and trickery to promote their cause. A cause which I don't think too many peole can really support. Their stated goal is to turn the entire world vegan to the point where we don't use animals at all for food, clothing, research or entertainment. Frankly that would pretty much cause the extinction of all domesticated farm animals.

Who's going to raise chickens when no one will eat them? Who will raise cows wh. >Lets bring on the rights for chimps, but with right comes responsibilities. It is intellectual dishonesty to speak of 'Rights' for any of the lesser orders (and a non trivial number of humans these days, rant for another day) in the same way as we speak of them for us.

Every Right has an equal and opposite set of Obligations, no chimp I have heard of is capable of fulfilling said obligations. At a minimum they must respect the same Rights for fellow citizens. There is a reason we keep em in zoos and other highly supervised environments when they live in human settings. Stretched to the most extreme a chimp can have similar Rights as a small child, i.e. As a dependent of a full Citizen who assumes responsibility for the actions of a minor child and makes decisions in its name.

But even that doesn't make total sense because in the case of a child it is assumed the child will eventually assume all of the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship and those rights are only being held in trust until that time. If as a society we decide that inflicting medical experiments, etc on em is a bad thing, so be it. But lets recognize that is it is US making the decision and it has nothing whatsoever with any daft notions that semi intelligent species have 'Human Rights' because it does not a damned thing for them while the intellectual dishonesty can only lead to a reduction in what the term means for us in the long run. Besides it is obvious what the real agenda is, get chimps 'Rights' and then groups like PETA will use that thin end of the wedge to extend the flawed logic behind it to all animals and then all living things.

These days PETA and the US Humane Society (National, not the local unrelated groups doing good works running the local animal shelter) are nothing more than front groups for terrorist groups like ALF anyway, if we ignored and defunded em they would go away. >Animals deserve rights when they can specifically ask for them. The moment a chimp makes a sign on its own asking for equal treatment, I say we give it to them. Until then, it's monkey brains for dinner. And the same applies to human babies. I say human rights starts at age 2.

It certainly shuts up those anti-abortionists. Now I have no idea what I would like for dinner, but I'm not that fond of monkeys. They smell of bananas. I'll just look around the house an see if I can find something tasty. I just want to point out that we humans *in general* can take responsibility for the rules we impose in our society. Children and mentally retarded are not the norm.

The Norm is the average adult that understands our society and all the responsibilities that goes with it. So, Children, even though they can't think for themselves, learn to think for themselves over time. The mentally retarded have to be taken care of, and cannot be expected to behave responsibly, and therefore have to be protected in varying degrees. You would not hand a gun to one, would you?

And if you did and he/she shot you, would a mentally retarded person be held legally responsible for it? If we give the monkey human rights, then we have to expect it to behave responsibly.

Ain't gonna happen. And the same applies to human babies. I say human rights starts at age 2. It certainly shuts up those anti-abortionists. I agree that killing your child should be legal up until it's two years old.

I mean, sometimes you don't know if you really want a child before the third trimester rolls around. It's not civilized to put a mother under that kind of stress. Give her some time to think about it.

Then, if she doesn't want he baby after a year or two, she can just drop it off in a dumpster or something. The only reason even pro-abortionists are against late term and post-natal abortions is because that's when the child starts looking cute. It's just like those damn baby seals everyone keeps crying about. Okay, so everyone has jumped on the 'Well, we give human rights to babies and the severely mentally disabled, and THEY can't articulate them.' First of all, a chimp doesn't get 'human rights' simply because they're not human. If you want to propose a 'chimp rights' campaign, go right ahead. Secondly, babies and the severely retarded are a poor example, because they usually DON'T get the same rights as grown-up, normal humans.

Do babies have the right to free speech? Do they have the right to travel wherever they want to go? Do they have the right to vote?

Do they have the right to petition their government, or serve in it? Mom and Dad are their dictators. What about someone who is severely retarded (not even capable of speech or understanding 'rights,' the way chimps are).

Odds are they're under strict care of an institution or family members, which means they don't have any meaningful rights either. Now, if by 'rights,' you mean simply 'the right not to be wantonly abused or killed,' then sure. I suspect that's what most people mean when they're talking about chimps. But there are already laws on the books giving those 'rights' to most animals (in the U.S.

We call them 'animal cruelty laws'). That's not to say that it's absolutely illegal to kill animals already, by any means. But generally it must be done under regulation and with minimal cruelty (slaughterhouses are regulated, hunting is strictly controlled, etc.). In the U.S., at least, you can't just walk out into the woods and start killing animals. And (if you're not working in a licensed medical lab) you sure as Hell can't torture animals. Both will get you heavily fined at minimum, thrown in jail at worst. My personal view is that rights are not granted unless there is a reciprocal responsibility.

This is because a right has no meaning without some sort of context. What the article describes is actually not a 'right' for animals like chimps, it's more a restriction on human activity so should just be called that.

There is nothing that will keep chimps from recognizing the 'rights' of other chimps, and I think that is the key here: Not the ability to request rights, but the ability to recognize rights. (Now there are cases where handicapped members of a species may not be able to do this, but that doesn't mean the rights don't apply; what I mean is that, as a class, a species must have the capability.) If it can be shown that other animals have the capacity to understand, recognize, and uphold rights, then I'd be willing to accept granting them rights. Same goes for artificial intelligence: rights should only be granted when the entity receiving the rights is able to recognize the rights of others. So far as I've been able to observe, only humans have the concept of 'rights'. In the greater animal kingdom it's all about dominance and hereditary hierarchies, not 'rights'. Or the most exotic thing you have seen in the world is your cat? Come to think of it, you have a point there, my cat certainly deserves citizenship.

After all, the fuzzy things managed to tame humans, so it kinda says something about where they are in a sorted list by IQ. Plus, you've seen how they're attracted to books you're reading, or to your keyboard. They're natural nerds, I tell you;) Second, but probably more important, giving cats a right to vote can't _possibly_ make it any worse. When was the last time you saw a cat torturing another cat for fun, or to scare the other cats into submission? When was the last time you saw a cat go to war? For that matter, when was the last time you saw a cat kill another?

I mean, sure, they fight, but with the natural weapons they have they'd be perfectly capable of taking each other apart if they wanted to. The species however has clear rules of engagement and of signalling 'I surrender' or 'I'm not a threat, don't attack me'. Plus, most of the fights you get to see are either (A) actually playing/training, or (B) because humans force them into situations where the normal conflict resolution mechanisms don't work. E.g., bringing another cat on the territory of another without all the 'rituals' (so to speak) normally associated with joining another group, and without the possibility to just go away. Plus, they have built in mechanisms to avoid needing a war in the first place. Most felines release a number of eggs based on how well fed the mother is.

So if the cat can barely feed itself, it will at most give birth to one kitten or two. If it's doing perfectly well, it will do its part for population growth. So it's hard to end up in a situation where they'd need to start a war for resources. So I have to wonder how much worse it could possibly be if the cats could vote on issues like the stupid war in Iraq. My take is that it couldn't be any worse than letting humans do it.

Second, but probably more important, giving cats a right to vote can't _possibly_ make it any worse. Actually, this isn't far off from the truth.

Because if you look at democratic voting honestly, it is a system that gives two uninformed individuals the ability to outvote an informed person. Adding a cat's (presumably random) vote to that would give the informed person more power from time to time, and otherwise, it wouldn't affect the outcome - because the fact is, informed people are in the minority a. 'or to scare the other cats into submission?' Do you really own a cat? This is -common- cat behavior. If they cat doesn't submit, they actually physically fight until one does.

I meant crap like: person A humiliates/tortures/kills/whatever person B, just to make a point to persons X, Y and Z. Innocents get made an example of, just to remind everyone else what their place is, and what can happen if they get ideas above their station. I can honestly say that I've never seen anything even remotely similar in cats. And, trust me, I grew up with cats around since I was a baby.

If cat A has a problem with cat X, it takes it on cat X directly, not on some bystander to make a point. You say that most cat fights are human-made. But that totally doesn't explain alley-cat fights, or jungle-panther fights. They fight for supremacy. The only thing keeping them from being more war-like than us is lack of cooperation and opposable thumbs. Oh, they'll make a show of power all right, but then one gives up and that's it. I can't even remember hearing about a cat fight that ended up lethal for one of the combatants.

And I don't think lack of opposable thumbs is what's lacking there to make them lethal. The same cats are perfectly able to tear a larger animal apart. E.g., I've seen cats hunt rabbits or rats larger than their own size.

The teeth and claws are perfectly enough to do a _lot_ of damage to another cats, if they wanted to kill each other. Compare that to some of the genocides the humans did, and I can't help liking cats a lot more. There's stuff we humans do which isn't even about power or territory, but just killing someone else because they're from a different country, race, religion or voted for the opposite party.

(See, civil wars.) Basically: when a cat signals 'I give up', that's it, the fighting stops. When a human comes up with his hands up, on the other hand, the others just want to kill and torture him. And then there are the countless cases where people took out their frustration upon non-combatants who didn't fight in the first place. It took millenia and several international conventions and harsh laws to tell everyone to freakin' let go.

And as we see in the recent cases in Iraq, they still don't. I'm going to assume that you haven't really been observing your cats then. I currently have two, at one time or another I have had four. I also cat-sit and help re-domesticate feral cats for adoption.

My 20lb Bombay mix killed a cat that would not submit to him after it got it's ass whupped. It kept attacking, escalating the scale of violence until my cat found it intolerable and ended the problem. Unfortunately, I knew they were having issues but I didn't think they kill over it. I figured they'd end up a. So, the question is, can humans enter into any meaningful social contract with chimpanzees?

And the answer, I would say, is no. Clearly, you've never owned a dog, or thought the relationship through if you have.

Humans enter into all manner of social contracts with canines. Food and care and love in exchange for protection, warning, even hunting prowess. It seems to me your argument fails before it ever reaches the level of trying to deal with a chimp; not to mention the fact that we routinely award hum.

Sleep is associated with a state of muscle relaxation and reduced perception of environmental stimuli. Sleep is a naturally recurring state of mind and body, characterized by altered, relatively inhibited sensory activity, inhibition of nearly all, and reduced interactions with surroundings. It is distinguished from by a decreased ability to react to, but is more easily reversed than the state of being. Sleep occurs in, in which the body alternates between two distinct modes known as and sleep.

Although REM stands for 'rapid eye movement', this mode of sleep has many other aspects, including virtual of the body. A well-known feature of sleep is the, an experience typically recounted in narrative form, which resembles waking life while in progress, but which usually can later be distinguished as fantasy. During sleep, most of the are in an state, helping to restore the immune, nervous, skeletal, and muscular systems; these are vital processes that maintain mood, memory, and cognitive performance, and play a large role in the function of the and. The internal promotes sleep daily at night. The diverse purposes and mechanisms of sleep are the subject of substantial ongoing research.

The advent of has substantially altered sleep timing in industrialized countries. Humans may suffer from various, including, such as,,, and;, such as and;; and. Main article: The most pronounced physiological changes in sleep occur in the brain.

Especially during non-REM sleep, the brain uses significantly less energy during sleep than it does in waking. In areas with reduced activity, the brain restores its supply of (ATP), the molecule used for short-term storage and transport of energy.

(Since in quiet waking the brain is responsible for 20% of the body's energy use, this reduction has an independently noticeable impact on overall energy consumption.) Sleep increases the. In other words, sleeping persons perceive fewer stimuli. However, they can generally still respond to loud noises and other salient sensory events. During, humans secrete bursts of. All sleep, even during the day, is associated with secretion of.

Key physiological measurements indicators of sleep include EEG of, (EOG) of eye movements, (EMG) of activity. Simultaneous collection of these measurements is called, and can be performed in a specialized.

Sleep researchers also use simplified (EKG) for cardiac activity and for motor movements. Non-REM and REM sleep Sleep is divided into two broad types: (non-REM or NREM sleep) and (REM sleep). Non-REM and REM sleep are so different that physiologists identify them as distinct behavioral states. Non-REM sleep occurs first and after a transitional period is called or deep sleep. During this phase, body temperature and heart rate fall, and the brain uses less energy. REM sleep (also known as paradoxical sleep), a smaller portion of total sleep time and the main occasion for (or ), is associated with desynchronized and fast brain waves, eye movements, loss of muscle tone, and suspension of.

The of alternate NREM and REM sleep takes an average of 90 minutes, occurring 4–6 times in a good night's sleep. The (AASM) divides NREM into three stages: N1, N2, and N3, the last of which is also called delta sleep. The whole period normally proceeds in the order: N1 → N2 → N3 → N2 → REM. REM sleep occurs as a person returns to stage 2 or 1 from a deep sleep.

There is a greater amount of deep sleep (stage N3) earlier in the night, while the proportion of REM sleep increases in the two cycles just before natural awakening. Further information: Awakening can mean the end of sleep, or simply a moment to survey the environment and readjust body position before falling back asleep. Sleepers typically awaken soon after the end of a REM phase or sometimes in the middle of REM. Internal circadian indicators, along with successful reduction of homeostatic sleep need, typically bring about awakening and the end of the sleep episode. Awakening involves heightened electrical activation in the brain, beginning with the thalamus and spreading throughout the cortex. During a night's sleep, a small portion is usually spent in a waking state. As measured by electroencephalography, young females are awake for 0–1% of the larger sleeping period; young males are awake for 0–2%.

In adults, wakefulness increases, especially in later cycles. One study found 3% awake time in the first ninety-minute sleep cycle, 8% in the second, 10% in the third, 12% in the fourth, and 13–14% in the fifth. Most of this awake time occurred shortly after REM sleep.

Today, many humans wake up with an. (Some people, however, can reliably wake themselves up at a specific time with no need for an alarm.) Many sleep quite differently on workdays versus days off, a pattern which can lead to chronic circadian desynchronization.

Many people regularly look at television and other screens before going to bed, a factor which may exacerbate this mass circadian disruption. Scientific studies on sleep have shown that sleep stage at awakening is an important factor in amplifying. Timing Sleep timing is controlled by the (Process C), sleep-wake (Process S), and to some extent by individual will.

Circadian clock. The human ' Sleep timing depends greatly on signals from the circadian clock, or Process C, a complex neurochemical system which uses signals from an organism's environment to recreate an internal day–night rhythm. Process C counteracts the homeostatic drive for sleep during the day (in animals) and augments it at night.

The (SCN), a brain area directly above the, is presently considered the most important nexus for this process; however, secondary clock systems have been found throughout the body. An organism whose circadian clock exhibits a regular rhythm corresponding to outside signals is said to be; the rhythm so established persists even if the outside signals suddenly disappear. If an entrained human is isolated in a bunker with constant light or darkness, he or she will continue to experience rhythmic increases and decreases of body temperature and melatonin, on a period which slightly exceeds 24 hours. Scientists refer to such conditions as of the circadian rhythm. Under natural conditions, light signals regularly adjust this period downward, so that it corresponds better with the exact 24 hours of an Earth day. The clock exerts constant influence on the body, effecting sinusoidal oscillation of between roughly 36.2 °C and 37.2 °C. The suprachiasmatic nucleus itself shows conspicuous oscillation activity, which intensifies during subjective day (i.e., the part of the rhythm corresponding with daytime, whether accurately or not) and drops to almost nothing during subjective night.

The circadian pacemaker in the suprachiasmatic nucleus has a direct neural connection to the, which releases the hormone at night. Levels typically rise throughout the night,, and diminish during the day. Circadian secretion begins in the late afternoon, especially in women, and is subsequently augmented by sleep-induced secretion, to peak in the middle of the night. Circadian rhythm exerts some influence on the nighttime secretion of growth hormone. The circadian rhythm influences the ideal timing of a restorative sleep episode. Sleepiness increases during the night.

REM sleep occurs more during body temperature minimum within the circadian cycle, whereas can occur more independently of circadian time. The internal circadian clock is profoundly influenced by changes in light, since these are its main clues about what time it is. Exposure to even small amounts of light during the night can suppress melatonin secretion, increase body temperature, and increase cognitive ability. Short pulses of light, at in the circadian cycle, can significantly 'reset' the internal clock.

Blue light, in particular, exerts the strongest effect, leading to concerns that before bed may interfere with sleep. Modern humans often find themselves desynchronized from their internal circadian clock, due to the requirements of work (especially ), long-distance travel, and the influence of universal indoor lighting. Even if they have sleep debt, or feel sleepy, people can have difficulty staying asleep at the peak of their circadian cycle.

Conversely they can have difficulty waking up in the trough of the cycle. A healthy young adult entrained to the sun will (during most of the year) fall asleep a few hours after sunset, experience body temperature minimum at 6AM, and wake up a few hours after sunrise. Main article: Generally speaking, the longer an organism is awake, the more it feels a need to sleep ('sleep debt').

This driver of sleep is referred to as Process S. The balance between sleeping and waking is regulated by a process called.

Induced or perceived lack of sleep is commonly called. Process S is driven by the depletion of and accumulation of in the forebrain that disinhibits the, allowing for inhibition of the. Sleep deprivation tends to cause slower brain waves in the frontal cortex, shortened attention span, higher anxiety, impaired memory, and a grouchy mood.

Conversely, a well-rested organism tends to have improved memory and mood. Neurophysiological and functional have demonstrated that frontal regions of the brain are particularly responsive to homeostatic sleep pressure. Scientists do not agree on how much sleep debt it is possible to accumulate; whether it is accumulated against an individual's average sleep or some other benchmark; nor on whether the prevalence of sleep debt among adults has changed appreciably in the in recent decades. Sleep debt does show some evidence of being cumulative. Subjectively, however, humans seem to reach maximum sleepiness after 30 hours of waking. It is likely that children are sleeping less than previously in.

One neurochemical indicator of sleep debt is, a neurotransmitter that inhibits many of the bodily processes associated with wakefulness. Adenosine levels increase in the cortex and basal forebrain during prolonged wakefulness and decrease during the sleep-recovery period, potentially acting as a homeostatic regulator of sleep. And temporarily block the effect of adenosine, prolong sleep latency, and reduce total sleep time and quality. Social timing Humans are also influenced by aspects of social time: the hours when other people are awake, the hours when work is required, the time on the clock, etc., standard times used to unify the timing for people in the same area, correspond only approximately to the natural rising and setting of the sun. The approximate nature of the timezone can be shown with China, a country which used to span five time zones and now (UTC +8). Distribution In, an organism sleeps several times in a 24-hour cycle. Monophasic sleep occurs all at once.

Under experimental conditions, humans tend to alternate more frequently between sleep and wakefulness (i.e., exhibit more polyphasic sleep) if they have nothing better to do. Given a 14-hour period of darkness in experimental conditions, humans tended towards bimodal sleep, with two sleep periods concentrated at the beginning and at the end of the dark time.

Bimodal sleep in humans was more common before the. Different characteristic sleep patterns, such as the familiarly so-called ' and ', are called. Genetics and sex have some influence on chronotype, but so do habits. Chronotype is also liable to change over the course of a person's lifetime. Seven-year-olds are better disposed to wake up early in the morning than are fifteen-year-olds. Chronotypes far outside the normal range are called circadian rhythm sleep disorders. Main article: The habit has recently been associated with a 37% lower coronary mortality, possibly due to reduced cardiovascular stress mediated by daytime sleep.

Short naps at mid-day and mild evening exercise were found to be effective for improved sleep, cognitive tasks, and mental health in elderly people. Many people have a temporary drop in alertness in the early afternoon, commonly known as the 'post-lunch dip.'

While a large meal can make a person feel sleepy, the post-lunch dip is mostly an effect of the circadian clock. People naturally feel most sleepy at two times of the day about 12 hours apart—for example, at 2:00 a.m. And 2:00 p.m. At those two times, the body clock 'kicks in.' At about 2 p.m. (14:00), it overrides the homeostatic buildup of sleep debt, allowing several more hours of wakefulness.

At about 2 a.m. (02:00), with the daily sleep debt paid off, it 'kicks in' again to ensure a few more hours of sleep. Genetics It is hypothesized that a considerable amount of sleep-related behavior, such as when and how long a person needs to sleep, is regulated by genetics.

Researchers have discovered some evidence that seems to support this assumption. Monozygotic (identical) but not dizygotic (fraternal) twins tend to have similar sleep habits. Neurotransmitters, molecules whose production can be traced to specific genes, are one genetic influence on sleep which can be analyzed. And the circadian clock has its own set of genes. Genes which may influence sleep include,, and variants near and.

Quality The quality of sleep may be evaluated from an objective and a subjective point of view. Objective sleep quality refers to how difficult it is for a person to fall asleep and remain in a sleeping state, and how many times they wake up during a single night. Poor sleep quality disrupts the cycle of transition between the different stages of sleep.

Subjective sleep quality in turn refers to a sense of being rested and regenerated after awaking from sleep. A study by A.

Harvey et al. (2002) found that insomniacs were more demanding in their evaluations of sleep quality than individuals who had no sleep problems. Homeostatic sleep propensity (the need for sleep as a function of the amount of time elapsed since the last adequate sleep episode) must be balanced against the circadian element for satisfactory sleep. Along with corresponding messages from the circadian clock, this tells the body it needs to sleep. A person who regularly awakens at an early hour will generally not be able to sleep much later than his or her normal waking time, even if moderately sleep-deprived [ ].

The timing is correct when the following two circadian markers occur after the middle of the sleep episode and before awakening: maximum concentration of the hormone melatonin, and minimum core body temperature. Ideal duration. The main health effects of, indicating impairment of normal maintenance by sleep. Human sleep needs vary by age and amongst individuals, and sleep is considered to be adequate when there is no daytime sleepiness or dysfunction. Moreover, self-reported sleep duration is only moderately correlated with actual sleep time as measured by, and those affected with may typically report having slept only four hours despite having slept a full eight hours.

Researchers have found that sleeping 6–7 hours each night correlates with longevity and cardiac health in humans, though many underlying factors may be involved in the causality behind this relationship. Sleep difficulties are furthermore associated with psychiatric disorders such as,, and. Up to 90% of adults with depression are found to have sleep difficulties. Dysregulation found on EEG includes disturbances in sleep continuity, decreased delta sleep and altered REM patterns with regard to latency, distribution across the night and density of eye movements.

Bronze statue of sleeping, 3rd century BC–early 1st century AD By the time infants reach the age of two, their brain size has reached 90 percent of an adult-sized brain; a majority of this brain growth has occurred during the period of life with the highest rate of sleep. The hours that children spend asleep influence their ability to perform on cognitive tasks. Children who sleep through the night and have few night waking episodes have higher cognitive attainments and easier temperaments than other children. Sleep also influences language development. To test this, researchers taught infants a faux language and observed their recollection of the rules for that language. Infants who slept within four hours of learning the language could remember the language rules better, while infants who stayed awake longer did not recall those rules as well. There is also a relationship between infants' vocabulary and sleeping: infants who sleep longer at night at 12 months have better vocabularies at 26 months.

Children need many hours of sleep per day in order to develop and function properly: up to 18 hours for babies, with a declining rate as a child ages. Early in 2015, after a two-year study, the in the US announced newly revised recommendations as shown in the table below. Age and condition Sleep Needs Newborns (0–3 months) 14 to 17 hours Infants (4–11 months) 12 to 15 hours Toddlers (1–2 years) 11 to 14 hours Preschoolers (3–4 years) 10 to 13 hours School-age children (5–12 years) 9 to 11 hours Teenagers (13–17 years) 8 to 10 hours Adults (18–64 years) 7 to 9 hours Older Adults (65 years and over) 7 to 8 hours Functions of sleep Restoration The human organism physically restores itself during sleep, healing itself and removing waste which builds up during periods of activity. This restoration takes place mostly during, during which body temperature, heart rate, and brain oxygen consumption decrease. The brain, especially, requires sleep for restoration, whereas in the rest of the body these processes can take place during quiescent waking. In both cases, the reduced rate of enables countervailing restorative processes. While awake, metabolism generates reactive oxygen species, which are damaging to cells.

In sleep, metabolic rates decrease and reactive oxygen species generation is reduced allowing restorative processes to take over. The sleeping brain has been shown to remove metabolic waste products at a faster rate than during an awake state. It is further theorized that sleep helps facilitate the synthesis of molecules that help repair and protect the brain from these harmful elements generated during waking. Anabolic hormones such as growth hormones are secreted preferentially during sleep. Sleep has also been theorized to effectively combat the accumulation of in the brain, by increasing the efficiency of endogenous antioxidant mechanisms.

[ ] The concentration of the sugar compound in the brain increases during sleep, and is depleted through metabolism during wakefulness. Has been shown to be affected by sleep. It has been shown that sleep deprivation affects the.

It is now possible to state that 'sleep loss impairs immune function and immune challenge alters sleep,' and it has been suggested that sleep increases white blood cell counts. A 2014 study found that depriving mice of sleep increased cancer growth and dampened the immune system's ability to control cancers. The effect of sleep duration on growth is not completely known. One study recorded growth, height, and weight, as correlated to parent-reported time in bed in 305 children over a period of nine years (age 1–10). It was found that 'the variation of sleep duration among children does not seem to have an effect on growth.' It is well established that affects levels in adult men.

During eight hours' sleep, Van Cauter, Leproult, and Plat found that the men with a high percentage of (average 24%) also had high growth hormone secretion, while subjects with a low percentage of (average 9%) had low growth hormone secretion. Memory processing. Main article: During sleep, especially REM sleep, people tend to have dreams: elusive first-person experiences, which, despite their frequently bizarre qualities, seem realistic while in progress. Dreams can seamlessly incorporate elements within a person's mind that would not normally go together.

They can include apparent sensations of all types, especially vision and movement. People have proposed many about the functions of dreaming. Postulated that dreams are the symbolic expression of frustrated desires that have been relegated to the, and he used in the form of in attempting to uncover these desires. Counterintuitively, are not more frequent during sexual dreams than during other dreams. The parasympathetic nervous system experiences increased activity during REM sleep which may cause erection of the penis or clitoris. In males, 80% to 95% of REM sleep is normally accompanied by partial to full penile erection, while only about 12% of men's dreams contain sexual content. And propose that dreams are caused by the firing of neurons in the during the REM period.

Neatly, this theory helps explain the irrationality of the mind during REM periods, as, according to this theory, the then creates a in an attempt to reconcile and make sense of the nonsensical sensory information presented to it. This would explain the odd nature of many dreams.

Using, [ ],, or is thought to potentially suppress dreams, whereas may have the ability to encourage them. Disorders Insomnia is a general term for difficulty falling asleep and staying asleep. Insomnia is the most common sleep problem, with many adults reporting occasional insomnia, and 10–15% reporting a chronic condition. Insomnia can have many different causes, including psychological stress, a poor sleep environment, an inconsistent sleep schedule, or excessive mental or physical stimulation in the hours before bedtime.

Insomnia is often treated through behavioral changes like keeping a regular sleep schedule, avoiding stimulating or stressful activities before bedtime, and cutting down on stimulants such as caffeine. The sleep environment may be improved by installing heavy drapes to shut out all sunlight, and keeping computers, televisions and work materials out of the sleeping area. A 2010 review of published scientific research suggested that exercise generally improves sleep for most people, and helps sleep disorders such as insomnia. The optimum time to exercise may be 4 to 8 hours before bedtime, though exercise at any time of day is beneficial, with the exception of heavy exercise taken shortly before bedtime, which may disturb sleep. However, there is insufficient evidence to draw detailed conclusions about the relationship between exercise and sleep.

Sleeping medications such as and are an increasingly popular treatment for insomnia. Although these nonbenzodiazepine medications are generally believed to be better and safer than earlier generations of sedatives, they have still generated some controversy and discussion regarding side-effects. Appears to be a promising treatment for. Obstructive sleep apnea is a condition in which major pauses in breathing occur during sleep, disrupting the normal progression of sleep and often causing other more severe health problems. Apneas occur when the muscles around the patient's airway relax during sleep, causing the airway to collapse and block the intake of oxygen. Obstructive sleep apnea is more common than.

As oxygen levels in the blood drop, the patient then comes out of deep sleep in order to resume breathing. When several of these episodes occur per hour, sleep apnea rises to a level of seriousness that may require treatment. Diagnosing sleep apnea usually requires a professional sleep study performed in a sleep clinic, because the episodes of wakefulness caused by the disorder are extremely brief and patients usually do not remember experiencing them. Instead, many patients simply feel tired after getting several hours of sleep and have no idea why. Major risk factors for sleep apnea include chronic fatigue, old age, obesity and snoring.

Other disorders Sleep disorders include, (PLMD), (RLS), (UARS), and the circadian rhythm sleep disorders., or FFI, an extremely rare genetic disease with no known treatment or cure, is characterized by increasing insomnia as one of its symptoms; ultimately sufferers of the disease stop sleeping entirely, before dying of the disease. Somnambulism, known as sleep walking, is also a common sleeping disorder, especially among children.

In somnambulism the individual gets up from his/her sleep and wanders around while still sleeping. May be more easily awakened by disturbances in the environment and may to some degree lose the ability to consolidate sleep. Drugs and diet Drugs which induce sleep, known as, include, although these interfere with REM; hypnotics such as (Lunesta), (Sonata), and (Ambien);, such as (Benadryl) and;, despite its later in the night and interference with REM;, which have the same problem;, a component of the circadian clock, and released naturally at night by the; and, which may also interfere with REM., which inhibit sleep, include, an antagonist;,,, and related drugs;, which can alter the circadian rhythm, and, which acts similarly; and other drugs like and with poorly understood mechanisms. Dietary and nutritional choices may affect sleep duration and quality. One 2016 review indicated that a high diet promoted shorter onset to sleep and longer duration sleep than a high fat diet. A 2012 investigation indicated that mixed and are needed to promote quality sleep.

A varied diet containing fresh fruits and vegetables, low, and may be optimal for individuals seeking to improve sleep quality. High-quality on long-term dietary practices are needed to better define the influence of diet on sleep quality. In culture Anthropology.

Research suggests that sleep patterns vary significantly across cultures. The most striking differences are between societies that have plentiful sources of artificial light and ones that do not. The primary difference appears to be that pre-light cultures have more broken-up sleep patterns. For example, people without artificial light might go to sleep far sooner after the sun sets, but then wake up several times throughout the night, punctuating their sleep with periods of wakefulness, perhaps lasting several hours. The boundaries between sleeping and waking are blurred in these societies.

Some observers believe that nighttime sleep in these societies is most often split into two main periods, the first characterized primarily by deep sleep and the second by REM sleep. Some societies display a fragmented sleep pattern in which people sleep at all times of the day and night for shorter periods.

In many or societies, people will sleep on and off throughout the day or night depending on what is happening. Plentiful has been available in the industrialized West since at least the mid-19th century, and sleep patterns have changed significantly everywhere that lighting has been introduced.

In general, people sleep in a more concentrated burst through the night, going to sleep much later, although this is not always the case. Historian thinks that the traditional pattern of ',' as it is called, began to disappear among the urban upper class in Europe in the late 17th century and the change spread over the next 200 years; by the 1920s 'the idea of a first and second sleep had receded entirely from our social consciousness.' Ekirch attributes the change to increases in 'street lighting, domestic lighting and a surge in coffee houses,' which slowly made nighttime a legitimate time for activity, decreasing the time available for rest.

Today in most societies people sleep during the night, but in very hot climates they may sleep during the day. During, many Muslims sleep during the day rather than at night. In some societies, people sleep with at least one other person (sometimes many) or with animals. In other cultures, people rarely sleep with anyone except for an intimate partner. In almost all societies, sleeping partners are strongly regulated by social standards. For example, a person might only sleep with the, the, a spouse or romantic partner, children, children of a certain age, children of specific gender, peers of a certain gender, friends, peers of equal social rank, or with no one at all. Sleep may be an actively social time, depending on the sleep groupings, with no constraints on noise or activity.

People sleep in a variety of locations. Some sleep directly on the ground; others on a skin or blanket; others sleep on platforms. Some sleep with blankets, some with pillows, some with simple headrests, some with no head support. These choices are shaped by a variety of factors, such as climate, protection from predators, housing type, technology, personal preference, and the incidence of pests.

The Revolution is an alternative to Carter's top selling Evolution release aid. This release is a sure cure for target panic and will teach proper shot execution and back tension. The release activates from increasing resistance and not from rotation. The Revolution has a casing designed perfect for the archer preferring vertical handle without a hole.

The safety has been relocated to the pinky for trouble-free drawing and letting-down of the bow. Like its predecessor, the Revolution utilizes an open jaw for easy loading and unloading of the release on a loop. Join the revolution against target panic and shoot Carter's Revolution!