Koko's 'desirable' life
Why does Koko’s life without this human interference only become something ‘potentially desirable’ after it has been established that Koko ‘manifested a degree of self-consciousness and rationality, and a considerable social understanding awareness based on her surroundings’? The language used here suggests that Koko’s life can only be conceived of as ‘desirable’ when it fulfills human standards of cognitive value. Why can’t Koko’s life be ‘desirable’ simply because Koko has autonomy and freedom to act in a world that adequately sustains them without a human controlling and monitoring their every movement? Why does Koko’s existence first have to display cognitive attributes that are perceived to mimic a human’s before it can be conceived of as ‘desirable’? Here the kind of empathy at work seems anthropocentric. Why does Koko have to display what a human deems ‘extraordinary functioning’ to deserve a life free from human manipulation? Whether we think Koko’s functioning is ‘extraordinary’ or not, Koko deserves to live a life without the constant harassment of a human forcing them to participate in tedious, frustrating or useless activities that pander to the human’s desire only.
