A lei atual foi forjada sobre a premissa de que a humanidade está no centro do mundo e de que o homem é o único e legitimado senhor de todos os seres vivos. Desde que Darwin revelou para o mundo uma então chocante realidade sim, nós viemos de um símio ancestral os princípios filosóficos do antropocentrismo começaram a ruir. E os animais, que nós sempre pensamos como objetivos de uso e consumo humano, como sofás, mesas e cadeiras? E os seres que nós descobrimos serem tão relacionados a nós que os chamamos de primos ou humanlike? Eles ainda são bens móveis nas palavras fora de moda do direito posto? Pois agora que uma nova realidade está implodindo os antigos tabus de irracionalidade e instinto pavloviano, muitos juristas e filósofos passaram a defender a existência de direitos fundamentais (como à vida, à liberdade, e à integridade física) a vários animais, baseados na sua igualdade substancial aos seres humanos. Para os que sustentam tais ideias, os animais, como a maioria de nós, têm interesses considerados relevantes, o que significa que eles podem pensar racionalmente, evitando a dor e o sofrimento, e procurando o bem-estar, mas somente o pequeno grupo chamado de grandes primatas (no qual se incluem o próprio homem e, além dele, os outros hominoides e antropoides, isto é, os chimpanzés, gorilas, orangotangos e bonobos) conhecem os rudimentos (blocos construtores) da moralidade. Aos grandes primatas podem ser reconhecidos direitos subjetivos? A resposta pode ser encontrada tanto no jusnaturalismo (na teoria do direito natural), que concebe direitos inatos, partilhados, segundo Justiniano, entre todas as criaturas vivas, quanto na teoria do interesse de Ihering, em oposição à teoria da vontade de Windscheid. Conjuntamente, eles podem explicar um novo conceito de personalidade jurídica mínima para os grandes primatas. / Modern Law is founded over the premise that mankind is in the center of the world; that man is the sole master and ruler of all living beings. Since Darwin brought into the eyes of humanity a brand new shocking reality yes, we came from the apish ancestor philosophy principles of anthropocentrism have collapsed. What about those animals we always thought as mere objects like sofas, tables or chairs? What about those beings we have now discovered so close related to us that we are used to call them as kin or humanlike creatures? Are they still goods by the old-fashioned words of written law? For a new reality is overcoming ancient taboos of irrationality and pavlovian instincts, there are now many jurists and philosophers who defend basic rights (such as life, liberty and bodily integrity) to lots of animals, based on their substantial equality to humans. For those who claim in their favor, animals, like most of us, have interests considered relevant, which means that they can think rationally, avoiding pain and suffering, and seeking for wellness of living, but only the small group called the great apes (in which we include the man himself as also the other hominoids or anthropoids: chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos) know the building blocks of morality. Are they so entitled to have rights? The answer lies in both jusnaturalism (theory of natural rights), which conceives inherent rights of living, commonly shared, according to Justinian, by all living creatures, and in Ihering theory of interest opposed to Windscheids of will. Combined together they can provide a new concept of minimum notion of legal personhood for the great apes.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:24:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Sandro Cavalcanti Rollo.pdf: 1748974 bytes, checksum: 1aae6dc120b3930557bc1edfe1d86d22 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-03-07 / In the last ten years some writs of habeas corpus have been filed, in Brazil and in other countries, on behalf of great primates. It is a matter of constitutional order and one more instrument utilized for activists for the recognition of the Animal s Rights. This slope, even if generates many controversies, is coming neatly bigger in the past few years, as we can verify throughout the doctrinal and jurisprudential production. The sentience always have been the central element inside the debates evolving the rela-tionship between humans and other animals. Scientific progress that have finding the impressive genetic closeness among us and the great primates, boosted the requests of habeas corpus on behalf of the latter. The grant of the order and, consequently, the admission of rights to the animals generates countless questionings. If the humankind proceeds in the path of the emancipatory trajectory and after receiving all human be-ings in their moral community, could receive , what seems to be the last frontier, the animals, many questionings should be subject of analysis, that already derives from the own grant of the writ to the anthropoids. So, what animals, which rights, what cri-teria to concede them, what judicial instruments must be used to protect them, what is the consequence for humans of the acknowledgment of the Animals Rights and what criteria should be utilized in a conflict of interests between human animals and nonhu-man animals, are some of the largely complex questionings that will be subject of re-flection in the present work / Nos últimos 10 anos vem sendo impetrados, no Brasil e em outros países, habeas corpus em favor de grandes primatas. Trata-se a ação constitucional de mais um ins-trumento utilizado por ativistas para o reconhecimento dos Direitos Animais. Esta ver-tente, ainda que geradora de polêmicas, vem nitidamente crescendo ao longo dos últimos anos, como se verifica através da produção doutrinaria, legislativa e jurispru-dencial. A senciência sempre foi elemento central dentro dos debates envolvendo a relação humanos e demais animais. Os avanços científicos que constataram a im-pressionante proximidade genética entre os nós e os grandes primatas impulsionaram as demandas de habeas corpus em favor deles. A concessão da ordem e a conse-quente admissão de direitos aos animais geram inúmeros questionamentos. Caso a humanidade continue na sua trajetória emancipatória e, depois de acolher todos os seres humanos em sua comunidade moral, acolha, o que parece ser a última fronteira, os animais, várias questões deverão ser objeto de análise, que já derivam da própria concessão do writ aos antropoides. Assim, quais animais, quais direitos, qual critério para concedê-los, quais instrumentos jurídicos para protegê-los, qual a consequência para os humanos do reconhecimento dos Direitos Animais e qual critério a ser utilizado em conflito de interesses entre animais humanos e animais não humanos, são algu-mas das altamente complexas questões que serão objeto de reflexão no presente trabalho

RÉSUMÉ Le degré de rétention de l’arboricolisme dans le répertoire locomoteur des hominines fossiles du Pliocène est toujours matière à débat, les études ayant principalement porté sur la courbure des phalanges et la proportion des membres. Vu la récente découverte de DIK-1-1 (A. afarensis) et de la scapula qui lui est associée, l’étude de cet os d’un point de vue fonctionnel est intéressante, puisqu’il est directement impliqué dans la locomotion de presque tous les hominoïdes. Le but de cette étude est de tenter d’établir un lien entre l’orientation supéro-inférieure (SI) et antéro-postérieure (AP) de la cavité glénoïde de la scapula et les comportements locomoteurs chez les grands singes et l’humain moderne. Des analyses comparatives sur les adultes ont été réalisées pour 1) voir s’il existe des différences dans la morphologie étudiée entre les espèces et 2) voir si ces différences peuvent être expliquées par la taille corporelle. Des analyses ontogéniques ont aussi été réalisées pour voir si un accroissement de la taille corporelle pendant le développement et les changements locomoteurs qui y sont associés correspondent à un changement d’orientation de la cavité glénoïde. Les résultats montrent que les humains ont une cavité glénoïde qui est orientée moins supérieurement que les grands singes, mais que Pongo, bien qu’étant le plus arboricole, n’a pas l’orientation la plus supérieure. Les « knuckle-walkers » (Pan et Gorilla) se distinguent des autres hominoïdes avec une orientation de la surface glénoïde relative à l’épine plus inférieure. La taille corporelle ne semble pas influencer la morphologie étudiée, sauf parfois chez le gorille. Seuls l’humain et les mâles Pongo montrent un changement ontogénique dans l’orientation de la cavité glénoïde relativement à l’épine. Sur la base de ces résultats, l’orientation de la cavité glénoïde semble refléter partiellement la fonction du membre supérieur dans la locomotion, mais des recherches plus poussées sont nécessaires. Mots-Clés : Scapula, cavité glénoïde, grands singes, humains, locomotion, arboricolisme. / ABSTRACT The degree to which Pliocene fossil hominins have retained some form of arborealism in their locomotor repertoire is still matter of debate, in part because studies linking upper limb morphology to locomotor behaviors in primates mostly focused on phalangeal curvature and limb proportions. Given the recent discovery of DIK-1-1 (A. afarensis) and its associated scapula, investigation of this bone from a functional perspective seemed of interest since it is directly involved in almost every hominoid’s locomotion. The purpose of this study is to try to establish a link between the superoinferior and anteroposterior orientation of the glenoid cavity of the scapula and locomotor behaviors in living great apes and modern humans. Comparative analyses were performed on adult individuals to 1) establish if there were differences across species and 2) verify that those differences, if any, could be linked to overall body size. Ontogenetic analyses were also performed at the intraspecific level to see if a change in body size during development, which is often associated with changes in locomotor behaviors, is related to a change in the orientation of the glenoid cavity. These results show that humans have a more inferiorly oriented glenoid cavity than great apes, but Pongo, even if it is the most arboreal species, does not have the most superiorly oriented glenoid cavity. Knuckle-walkers (Pan and Gorilla) differ from other hominoids, exhibiting a more inferiorly oriented glenoid cavity relative to the spine. Body size does not seem to influence the orientation of the articulation, with a few exceptions for gorillas. Only humans and male Pongo show a significant ontogenetic change in the orientation of the glenoid cavity relative to the spine. On the basis of these results, the orientation of the glenoid cavity seems to reflect only in part the use of the upper limb in locomotion, however, it will need to be investigated further. Keywords : Scapula, glenoid cavity, great apes, humans, locomotion, arboreality.

A lei atual foi forjada sobre a premissa de que a humanidade está no centro do mundo e de que o homem é o único e legitimado senhor de todos os seres vivos. Desde que Darwin revelou para o mundo uma então chocante realidade sim, nós viemos de um símio ancestral os princípios filosóficos do antropocentrismo começaram a ruir. E os animais, que nós sempre pensamos como objetivos de uso e consumo humano, como sofás, mesas e cadeiras? E os seres que nós descobrimos serem tão relacionados a nós que os chamamos de primos ou humanlike? Eles ainda são bens móveis nas palavras fora de moda do direito posto? Pois agora que uma nova realidade está implodindo os antigos tabus de irracionalidade e instinto pavloviano, muitos juristas e filósofos passaram a defender a existência de direitos fundamentais (como à vida, à liberdade, e à integridade física) a vários animais, baseados na sua igualdade substancial aos seres humanos. Para os que sustentam tais ideias, os animais, como a maioria de nós, têm interesses considerados relevantes, o que significa que eles podem pensar racionalmente, evitando a dor e o sofrimento, e procurando o bem-estar, mas somente o pequeno grupo chamado de grandes primatas (no qual se incluem o próprio homem e, além dele, os outros hominoides e antropoides, isto é, os chimpanzés, gorilas, orangotangos e bonobos) conhecem os rudimentos (blocos construtores) da moralidade. Aos grandes primatas podem ser reconhecidos direitos subjetivos? A resposta pode ser encontrada tanto no jusnaturalismo (na teoria do direito natural), que concebe direitos inatos, partilhados, segundo Justiniano, entre todas as criaturas vivas, quanto na teoria do interesse de Ihering, em oposição à teoria da vontade de Windscheid. Conjuntamente, eles podem explicar um novo conceito de personalidade jurídica mínima para os grandes primatas. / Modern Law is founded over the premise that mankind is in the center of the world; that man is the sole master and ruler of all living beings. Since Darwin brought into the eyes of humanity a brand new shocking reality yes, we came from the apish ancestor philosophy principles of anthropocentrism have collapsed. What about those animals we always thought as mere objects like sofas, tables or chairs? What about those beings we have now discovered so close related to us that we are used to call them as kin or humanlike creatures? Are they still goods by the old-fashioned words of written law? For a new reality is overcoming ancient taboos of irrationality and pavlovian instincts, there are now many jurists and philosophers who defend basic rights (such as life, liberty and bodily integrity) to lots of animals, based on their substantial equality to humans. For those who claim in their favor, animals, like most of us, have interests considered relevant, which means that they can think rationally, avoiding pain and suffering, and seeking for wellness of living, but only the small group called the great apes (in which we include the man himself as also the other hominoids or anthropoids: chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos) know the building blocks of morality. Are they so entitled to have rights? The answer lies in both jusnaturalism (theory of natural rights), which conceives inherent rights of living, commonly shared, according to Justinian, by all living creatures, and in Ihering theory of interest opposed to Windscheids of will. Combined together they can provide a new concept of minimum notion of legal personhood for the great apes.

Au sein du règne animal, les humains sont considérés comme possédant des capacités manuelles uniques. Cependant, nous ne savons toujours pas quelles sont les réelles capacités manuelles des primates, ni comment elles ont évolué. Les humains sont-ils réellement uniques ? Cette thèse vise à étudier les capacités de manipulation chez des Hominidés en lien avec l’anatomie et la fonction de leur main, en utilisant une approche interdisciplinaire combinant différentes approches : comportementale, morphologique, fonctionnelle et biomécanique. Pour quantifier les stratégies comportementales et les capacités de manipulation chez des Hominidés, j’ai mené une étude éthologique sur différents grands singes captifs et sur les humains au cours d’une même tâche complexe d'utilisation d'outils. J’ai utilisé des approches comparatives de morphométrie géométrique 3D sur le complexe trapézio-métacarpien combiné avec un modèle musculo-squelettique pour mieux interpréter les résultats comportementaux et pour tester le lien entre la morphométrie de la main et les contraintes biomécaniques durant l’utilisation d’outils chez les Hominidés. Les résultats de cette thèse montrent que les grands singes manifestent des capacités dynamiques de manipulation, mais que chaque espèce a ses propres spécificités. Plus de capacités dynamiques complexes, comme les mouvements intra-manuels, sont observés pour les bonobos et les gorilles que pour les orangs-outans. Les différents modes de vie des espèces peuvent expliquer cette variabilité. En outre, au cours de la tâche complexe d’utilisation d’outils, les humains montrent une meilleure performance que les grands singes et montrent des spécificités. Cette nouvelle approche intégrative montre clairement aussi que les différentes capacités de manipulation des Hominidés ne peuvent pas seulement être une conséquence des différentes morphologies de l’articulation trapézio-métacarpienne, mais aussi des différentes contraintes mécaniques liées à la morphométrie globale de la main. Ces résultats mettent en évidence la difficulté de déduire les capacités manuelles d’espèces fossiles à partir de certaines informations provenant de la forme de l'os, sans tenir compte de la morphométrie globale de la main et de son lien possible avec les contraintes biomécaniques. Cette thèse fournit de nouvelles informations sur les capacités manuelles des Hominidés, sur les différentes contraintes entourant ces capacités, et de nouvelles informations afin de mieux comprendre l'évolution des capacités manuelles chez les primates. / Humans are considered to have unique manual abilities in the animal kingdom. However, we still do not know what the real manual abilities of primates are, nor how they evolved. Are humans really unique? This dissertation aims to investigate the manipulative abilities in Hominids related to their hand anatomy and function, using an interdisciplinary framework combining behavioral, morphological, functional, and biomechanical approaches. To quantify the behavioral strategies and manipulative abilities in Hominids, I have conducted an ethological study on different captive great apes and on humans during the same complex tool use task. I used 3D geometric morphometrics and comparative approaches on the trapeziometacarpal complex combined with a musculo-skeletal model to better interpret the behavioral results and to test the link between hand morphometric and biomechanical constraints during tool use in Hominids. The results of this PhD show that great apes demonstrate dynamic manipulative abilities but that each species has its own specificities. More complex dynamic abilities, such as in-hand movements, are observed for bonobos and gorillas than for orangutans. The different lifestyles of the species may explain this variability. Moreover, during the complex tool use task, humans perform better than great apes and show specificities. The new integrative approach also clearly shows that the different manipulative abilities of Hominids cannot only be a consequence of the different morphologies of the trapeziometacarpal joint but also of the different mechanical constraints related to the overall hand morphometric. These results highlight the difficulty to infer manual abilities in fossils from some bone shape information, without taking into account the overall morphometric of the hand and its possible link with biomechanical constraints. This PhD thesis provides new information on the manual abilities of Hominids, on the different constraints surrounding these abilities, and new information to better understand the evolution of manual abilities in primates.

Although human biomedical and physiological information is readily available, such information for great apes is limited. We analyzed clinical chemical biomarkers in serum samples from 277 wild- and captive-born great apes and from 312 healthy human volunteers as well as from 20 rhesus macaques. For each individual, we determined a maximum of 33 markers of heart, liver, kidney, thyroid and pancreas function, hemoglobin and lipid metabolism and one marker of inflammation. We identified biomarkers that show differences between humans and the great apes in their average level or activity. Using the rhesus macaques as an outgroup, we identified human-specific differences in the levels of bilirubin, cholinesterase and lactate dehydrogenase, and bonobo-specific differences in the level of apolipoprotein A-I. For the remaining twenty-nine biomarkers there was no evidence for lineage-specific differences. In fact, we find that many biomarkers show differences between individuals of the same species in different environments. Of the four lineagespecific biomarkers, only bilirubin showed no differences between wild- and captive-born great apes. We show that the major factor explaining the human-specific difference in bilirubin levels may be genetic. There are human-specific changes in the sequence of the promoter and the protein-coding sequence of uridine diphosphoglucuronosyltransferase 1 (UGT1A1), the enzyme that transforms bilirubin and toxic plant compounds into water-soluble, excretable metabolites. Experimental evidence that UGT1A1 is down-regulated in the human liver suggests that changes in the promoter may be responsible for the human-specific increase in bilirubin. We speculate that since cooking reduces toxic plant compounds, consumption of cooked foods, which is specific to humans, may have resulted in relaxed constraint on UGT1A1 which has in turn led to higher serum levels of bilirubin in humans.

No description available.