Replies

Diseased chimpanzees do pose more of a risk than diseased 'other animals' because of their similarities to humans (obviously you view it as relation; personally view it as similarity: humans and great apes generally share similar ecological niches and therefore are similar genetically/physically).

However, by the same token, using your reasoning, why stop there? Should there be a ban on pig flesh (pork)? Pigs are more similar to humans than fish, cattle, or even dogs (that's bound to cause something of an uproar in the dogs' rights crowd: eating dogs, disgusting).

As it is, sufficiently reducing chimpanzees' lifespans (or the time it takes for them to reach maturity) would be difficult enough--it's more of a hypothetical issue. Though if they could--and if restarted eating meat--would eat a chimpanzee steak as much as would eat a beef one (taking into account cost and availability, etc., of course).

personally view it as similarity: humans and great apes generally share similar ecological niches and therefore are similar genetically/physically).

Why would this cause great apes to share more DNA with humans than any other species? Why do baboons, who arguably share our ecological niche more completely than chimps, share less DNA with us than chimps?

However, by the same token, using your reasoning, why stop there? Should there be a ban on pig flesh (pork)? Pigs are more similar to humans than fish, cattle, or even dogs (that's bound to cause something of an uproar in the dogs' rights crowd: eating dogs, disgusting).

Because in all such arguments there is a point at which risk exceeds reward. I would be very nervous about eating the flesh of apes or monkeys - primates are a potential reservoir of diseases which we haven't even discovered yet, but which can very easily cross over to our species. This applies not only to actual consumption of their flesh, but also to handling of their meat - AIDS is almost certainly present in humanity via apes or monkeys killed for food.