Should We Clone a Neanderthal? 990
SpaceAdmiral writes "Forget cloning a woolly mammoth — should scientists clone a Neanderthal? Such a feat should be possible soon, although it raises a number of bioethics concerns, including where to draw the line between humans and other animals."
Yes, because they would make (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Silly Humans! Clone an EINSTEIN !! (Score:5, Funny)
Indeed. What I want to know is what attracts them all to YouTube.
Re:Silly Humans! Clone an EINSTEIN !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Silly Humans! Clone an EINSTEIN !! (Score:4, Insightful)
How many people would have died in a US-USSR showdown?
Which one, Korea, Vietnam or to a lesser degree, Afghanistan in the 1980s? Nukes certainly did provide some stability of sorts, but US/USSR relations haven't been bloodless. We just killed each other by proxy.
Re:Silly Humans! Clone an EINSTEIN !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes (Score:5, Funny)
Cause then it would no longer be socially acceptable for women to call us that anymore.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes (Score:5, Funny)
The jokes are funnier if I don't have to explain them.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
What if its worse? What if they're smarter?
Re:Yes (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Chances are that the hundred of you would be working in packs with primitive weapons to wipe out the bears within a week.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Funny)
Now thats a reality show I would watch
Re:Yes (Score:4, Funny)
I was unaware bears and humans were attempting genocide on one another -- can you let me know when this happened? I was very surprised to hear the bears were doing this -- I thought they ate honey and stole picnic baskets all day.
A larger issue, I suppose, would be the uniquely human capacity to completely exterminate a species. Even in our early days, we show great promise at genocide.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Funny)
I don't know if it's that cut and dried.
Remember that, theoretically, up to half the bears would be smarter than the average bear.
Although having said that, they are likely to be a lot more boo-boos for the humans to take advantage of and ... which way did you say the door was?
Re: (Score:3)
Put me in a room with a bear, repeat a hundred times and see who comes out on top. Doesn't mean the bear is smarter.
That depends. Do you get a shotgun?
Re:Yes (Score:5, Funny)
Put me in a room with a bear, repeat a hundred times and see who comes out on top. Doesn't mean the bear is smarter.
I think it might mean that, actually. You just said "Put me in a room with a bear". Well, duh... you're clearly not that smart.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yes (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly. Which is why parent's bear analogy doesn't work.
The other reason being that survival of a species is a hugely complex thing, with many potential factors. I remember reading one thing (although it may have been science fiction) suggesting that our ability to lock our knees is what let us survive while the neanderthals died.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
At a recent seminar on the event I also found out an interesting fact: most estimates put the average daily caloric intake necessary for a neanderthal at around 7000. Cromagnum man (ie, us) can get along quite fine with 2000.
As such, a large part of it may have simply been food shortages. Even if you're bigger (or even smarter), if there's simply not enough food available to keep you alive, then you'll die out. Rather than strength or smarts it may have simply come down to efficiency.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
"As such, a large part of it may have simply been food shortages"
Even without food shortages, the fact that we could support four times as many people from the same resources would mean that we'd rapidly end up out-competing them through sheer weight of numbers.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Funny)
I for one welcome our previously extinct smarter overlords.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no pre-existing racial slur to calling a white person a monkey, therefore it is safe to assume that the white person in question actually resembles a monkey. Calling a black person a monkey... well, maybe you mean he resembles a monkey, and maybe you are using a racial slur.
Also, a few idiots blaming the wrong people and threatening/committing violence does not equal "the Left". It equals a few idiots.
If you believe that a few nutballs represents the entire Left, then you have to believe that every idiot who does reprehensible things on the Right actually represents everyone on the Right.
I agree, though, the rules should apply to everyone. Everyone deserves to be treated with basic respect, in my opinion.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
The Mormon church provided millions of dollars to help swing the vote, which is generally what "the gays" are upset about ... although "targeting" is a unique way of putting it. Probably reading some right wing news sources, like the new york times, would help you out.
But then this goes way past half-truths and misinformation ... stop listening to Fox News, it makes you look like an idiot.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Funny)
What if it turns out they are just like us?
I wouldn't worry about that too much. At this very moment, there are several millions of Neanderthals among us, both male and female [somethingawful.com].
CJ
Re:Yes (Score:5, Funny)
Given the boyfriends my ex has been through in the past couple of years, I think nobody might be a bit strong.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Funny)
(I can't believe I'm sinking to this level)
It also might depend on just how huge that issue really is. Wink, nudge.
I am speaking of penises .
Re:Yes (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually there's another argument. First off, Neanderthals had larger brains than us...just because they died out didn't mean they were stupid. There's even proof that they could have used a form of spoken language [discovery.com]. There could be a lot of things, weather, disease, famine, etc. They were also stronger. Neanderthals generally hunted in enclosed, wooded areas where they would attack prey in close proximity [discovery.com]. The lack of spears or other tools may be explained by the area they hunted. You can't throw a spear in a heavy woods. Or their build may not be suited to throw something like a spear accurately.
Then there's the theory that they didn't totally die off, but interbred with early modern man. And there's been no evidence I've seen that says their DNA was incompatible with ours or they would have produced a "mule."
And where did you get the idea that their body was "designed for the ice age." They had no better protection from the cold that we do. Here's one theory [discovery.com] that where it's believed they couldn't adapt their clothing to something that would help them survive the cold.
I think it will come down to a multiple of problems, no one thing wiped out the Neanderthal and I'm one who does believe there are some who are carrying a few of their genes. And although I'd really love to see theories laid to rest, IMO, he shouldn't be cloned like some animal. I believe he is at least a cousin and doesn't deserve to be turned into a lab rat or exhibit.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Cause then it would no longer be socially acceptable for women to call us that anymore.
That wouldn't matter. The Neanderthals being the new "hot" in town would steal everyone's girlfriends. They would even be making movies out of it, probably calling it something like "dusk."
I have an ethical problem with that.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Funny)
That wouldn't matter. The Neanderthals being the new "hot" in town would steal everyone's girlfriends. They would even be making movies out of it, probably calling it something like "dusk."
Our only solace is that the Geico commercials will really piss them off.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We're gonna throw dinner rolls at one another?
Amazingly enough, the term bunfight [thefreedictionary.com] has nothing to do with fighting or buns (or indeed food of any sort).
Oh well, it's not exactly like it's the first time a Briticism has been used incorrectly on /.
Re:Quick question (Score:4, Funny)
No, no, no, no, NO!
You've missed the point.
You do not start by cloning geniuses. Then you might end up with an evil genius and that would just end badly for everyone involved. No, it's far better to start with neanderthals and work your way up. Dear lord, you need to watch more horror movies.
Re:Quick question (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, his brain was most likely removed without permission: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein's_brain [wikipedia.org]
Anyways cloning humans isn't against human rights or unethical. Would you debate your existence if someone told you that you were cloned? What if humanity lost its ability to naturally procreate? Would it suddenly change to not being against God's will? Humans play God every day when we take or prolong life, and I say if it's for the better of humanity, I'm sure God would be cool with it.
Artificial Morality (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire argument against cloning is coming from well-meaning, do-gooders who for the most part, lack the capacity to understand the implications of cloning. There seems to be this thought that a cloned individual would be lacking in some capacity or held up as a carnival sideshow.
You may recall that back in 1978 the same furor erupted over the idea of a test-tube-baby. Louise Brown was raised as a normal child, had a normal upbringing and has her own family now. I would bet that if you asked her what her opinion is on being a test-tube-baby, she would look you in the eye and wonder how your head is screwed on.
Maybe the fears really revolve around our definition of what is intelligence and the seat of the soul. Intellect, development and the human condition are easy to define. The theocratic's will argue on the state of the soul (an intangible as we know it). To put the brakes on bringing a clone to life because of our fear that they would not have a soul is in the land of isty-misty bogeyman stories.
Cloning, even from an intact cell, should not raise such a visceral reaction, unless there is some belief that this will "steal" a soul from heaven or hell. Cloning of the long dead (even from pieces of DNA re-assembled in a laboratory process) is no different from a theological standpoint.
We are not going to create a "neanderthal park" where people will come and gawk at the nearly human. But we do need to define what is an intelligent being (dolphins, apes, neanderthal's, etc...) before some intelligence comes to our planet and decides that we are amongst the least intelligent on our own planet.
Re:Quick question (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it is unethical--because of the flaws in the process & results. I'm guessing that you have no idea how many deformed & crippled sheep they get before they get a single "good" clone--or how the "good" clone ages much more rapidly than a naturally born sheep. If the process were perfected, then there would be plenty of room for debate about ethics, but as the process stands now, it would highly unethical to clone a person.
Re:Quick question (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that a cloned individual is only genetically identical.
That'll be a Catch 22 if we can clone people and their memories, which isn't reasonably a thing to be expected.
Re:Quick question (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes (Score:5, Funny)
Interesting. You know, that same argument gets used all through history. In fact, it is the same argument that was used by Germans in WWII. And the truth is, that it DID yield MANY useful items. Much of our surgical tech. CAME from those experiments. Our knowledge of a number of diseases certainly came from there. Later Americans gained all sorts of useful knowledge by performing experiments on living humans, such as we learned a lot about syphilis in the 50s.
But I think that we should round up all the illegal aliens, Al Qaeda terrorists and neo-cons (all have been shown to be disastrous to America) and start a new round of medical experiments.
Or is there some objection via ethics and morals?
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Much of our surgical tech. CAME from those experiments.
Hardly. Almost all of the Nazi medical experiments were surgically useless. AFAIK, they didn't invent any new surgical techniques. They did learn a few things about how long humans can survive under extreme conditions, but that's about it, and it didn't even lead to much in the way of new treatments. I think hypothermia may have been an exception. Most of their experimentation was just sadism of little medical or scientific value, and a lot of it was biased to "prove" various Nazi racial theories.
Our knowledge of a number of diseases certainly came from there.
Again, not really. They experimented with drugs/cures for various diseases. They didn't discover any new diseases, didn't discover anything about how the diseases work inside the body, and as far as I know, didn't lead to cures for any major disease.
Geico (Score:5, Funny)
Well, arguably not... (Score:5, Interesting)
Could be (quite the role-reversal?) that they were the thoughtful ones, and we were just meaner.
Who knows? We don't.
Re:Well, arguably not... (Score:5, Informative)
If having a bigger brain was the ultimate measure of intelligence, then elephants would be geniuses [natureinstitute.org]
In fact, brain size does not matter in humans [netcom.com] either. It's just an old wise tale carried over from the 19th century that still haunts us today (as seen here).
Not so. (Score:3, Interesting)
Many people like to use Einstein as anecdotal evidence, as he did in have have a larger brain than the average. But all anecdotal evidence aside, there is a positive correlation that cannot be responsibly denied.
BUT... having said that, here is a subspecies that had a demonstrably different brain. How different was it? Which parts large, which parts smaller? Those
Also not so. (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, a statistic can be perfectly valid, but it still says absolutely nothing about a specific case. If it did, you would be able to reliably predict when a coin flip came up "heads".
So you are simply wrong, yet again: I implied no such thing.
Re:Not so. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's redundancies and backups then there's a reason for it being there, and you'll miss it when you need it.
The brain is an expensive thing, and if it was possible to do the same job with a smaller and cheaper one we'd presumably have evolved that way.
Re:Well, arguably not... (Score:4, Informative)
It's just an old wise tale
Old wive's tale.
Re:Well, arguably not... (Score:5, Informative)
It's just an old wise tale
Old wive's tale.
old wives' tale.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Well, arguably not... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:That used to be my understanding (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Well, arguably not... (Score:5, Informative)
As for the article you link to, they make the claim that if brain mass is correlated with intelligence, then you should also claim that women and short people are dumber. Although, women and short people also have smaller bodies, which means their brain mass/body mass ratio may be equal or better than men. So, who knows what should be the prediction based on that. And, of course, the correlation is certainly not 1.0, so even if a brain mass/intelligence correlation exists, it's not that clear what conclusions you can draw from large/small brains.
As for neanderthals, their body mass was also larger than humans, so it's unclear whether they would actually be smarter.
Also, I happen to think that elephants and whales are probably pretty smart. Maybe not as smart as us, but if you take the animal world as a whole, I think the correlation is obvious and undeniable. The smartest animals on earth (humans, elephants, dolphins, apes, etc) have the largest brains on the planet. The only real outlier is birds. Parrots can be very smart - evolution apparently found a way to build a small intelligent brain while still allowing the animal to fly.
I also found this claim (also from your article) to be amusing: "Early humanoids had a less developed cerebral cortex and therefore could not attain what we commonly call conscious experience. The same could be said for modern apes and dolphins. An ape's brain could get bigger, but unless the cerebral cortex develops in a certain way, the ape will never achieve "thought"." Ha. It's funny in this essay that talks about debunking myths of brain size, that the author introduces his own unfounded beliefs about brains. Who's he to say that apes, dolphins, and early humans didn't have conscious experience? Apes are actually quite smart. They understand the fact that other creatures have brains and sets of beliefs. Apes can recognize their own reflection in a mirror.
Re:Well, arguably not... (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought the best measure was the ratio of total_cells / inputs? For humans, it's about 50:1 - for every nerve input into the brain you have 50 cells to process it. For dogs, it's 3:1, for cats 4:1. A Chimpanzee is about 12:1 and if I remember correctly a dolphin is about 10:1.
Elephants have a very large brain but they obviously also have a huge number of inputs due to the size of the nervous system.
What line? (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as I'm concerned, there really is no point in drawing a line between human and animal. If we decide it's to be treated as a human, then it would obviously be deemed too destructive and unable to cope in society - as many people with mental issues are. At that point, we would segregate it from society in a humane habitat (as we do with mental patients, or at least the ones that can afford it :P). Now, obviously, no scientist would recieve funding for it's creation if it couldn't be studied (remember, it's not unethical to study human beings, if they aren't harmed and if it's consented to by someone with the mental capacity and authority to decide). If we decided it was an ANIMAL, obviously we would treat it like a zoo creature or pet (I'm sure no-one intends to eat this thing, even if that were legal). We would skip the mental evaluation and simply put it in a humane habitat, as we do with animals at the zoo or pets, and study it humanely (it's unethical and probably illegal to cut animals up for study). Either way, the end result is the same - the being is kept somewhere where it's not dangerous to itself or regular homo sapien sapiens, and studied. I don't understand why someone would wish to draw a line between animal and human for ethical reasons, when it would be treated the same due to it being mentally incapable of anything else.
Re:What line? (Score:5, Insightful)
Neanderthals were social, tool making beings. A solitary human being, raised in isolation, is not more more capable than a Neanderthal. This same human being will also be very maladjusted and unhappy, and thus not display "normal" behavior.
So, we must be fully ready to accept this thing as a sentient being, or not at all. Simply assuming that it could be kept locked up in a zoo or like a mental patient will reflect poorly.
And don't get me started on the obvious religious objections this project would face.
Re:What line? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, since the downsides of religions are usually connected with the attempts to suppress other religions, I'd say we would have gotten all the downsides and none of the upsides and thus would be worse off than now.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They also wore skins and took care of frail relatives. From what I have read it seems to me "aggression" is the most plausible answer. A significant behavioural difference was that Sapiens occupied the high ground, most predatory mammals have the same preference and (regardless of species) take a dim view of other competing predators inhabiting t
Clone 'em??? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't want to go to Chelsea (Score:3, Interesting)
Well (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wouldn't that be like knowingly bringing someone into the world knowing that they are going to be horrendously ugly and live their life lonely?
Really? Some of the boys I see attached to some girls would fit the description "Neanderthal" quite well ;)
Re:Well (Score:4, Funny)
What would the ethical ramification of this be?
I'm a consultant ethicist that could advise you on this.
I have a base package where I look very vaguely at the surface of things and decide most things are immoral. I also have a premium package where I look much deeper into the history of the issues and decided that what your asking is actually ethically ok.
"The Dead Will Rise" (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not the most religious of people, but does this not sound eerily like Revelation? The dead of past ages coming to life is quite creepy.
On the ethics issue, who is going to raise this child? Real parents? Or a bunch of scientists? I would define a Neanderthal as a human, and that means the clone should have Rights like everyone else. What about people who are prejudiced? I mean, if racism is a tough thing to grow up with, what about speciism ? A bunch of kids teasing him for being an "ape" could not be fun.
Re:"The Dead Will Rise" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"The Dead Will Rise" (Score:5, Insightful)
But when the inevitable species war erupts, we can end racism.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Racism is often based on poor logic, so how would this change anything?
Re:"The Dead Will Rise" (Score:4, Funny)
Eh, I'm still confused about my sarcastic comment being modded insightful.
Religious point of view (Score:5, Funny)
Housing, Nursery, or a Zoo? (Score:5, Interesting)
Housing, Nursery, or a Zoo?
I think that may become the biggest obstacle.
When that is decided, should we let him/her go to school and socialize or should we let keep him locked up for study.
What? (Score:5, Funny)
That's like asking "Should I flash linux onto the Microwave so I can use it as a file server?" or "Should I port Doom to the Credit-card reader I bought off eBay?" or "Should I build a deliberately complicated system of relays, pulleys, levers, programs and scripts so that I may control the precise movements and power output by a bog-standard toaster remotely, from 500 miles away?". I mean, really, do you have to ask? Of course we fucking should!
Evolution (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
but the NHL does
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Funny)
1) Extinct. Seems a bad move but:
2) Wait for Sapiens clone them up."If they extincted, they cannot be smart"
3) Rule the world! Muhahhahha
I guess xkcd could make a comic with this script.
Of course! (Score:3, Funny)
Of course we should clone one...
How else am I going to get a date?
This has been on my mind for a few years ... (Score:5, Interesting)
The DNA we have extracted from mammoth hair is from two individual mammoths who died between twenty and sixty thousand years ago. The supposed limit of DNA viability is roughly sixty thousand years. H. neanderthalensis went extinct less than fifteen thousand years ago. H. florensis is thought to have been around as recently as the past thirteen thousand years. I'd say we stand a good chance of recovering genetic material from either, or both of these species.
Should we bring these species out of evolutionary retirement? It's a dilemma:
1. How badly do scientists want to cheese off the world's major religions? I am ambivalent towards this. Ya know, some of the self-righteous pious freaks we have walking around spouting nonsense today deserve a swift kick in the nads. Still, is it worth the potential backlash?
2. Is this ethically justifiable? What could we do with a living genome that we could not do with that genome in a comparative study? How will we justify the potential gain in knowledge versus the rights of the resultant being when he or she is carried to term, reared, and socialized? Will he or she have full rights? Will he or she be able to be valued within society? Is some loony with a gun going to go "big game hunting" or "abominatinon-killing"?
3. Someone else in the comments discussed dealing with this individual if he or she is significantly psychologically and mentally different from us. What can we offer such an individual besides life in a high tech zoo?
4. Some things will be forever beyond us. We'll never hear true Neanderthal language, we'll never observe untainted Neanderthal culture, and a feral child experiment with any of the homo genus we'd be capable of bring back is pretty much unconscionable [wikipedia.org]. Are we looking for answers where there are none?
I guess it comes down to what we can learn versus the risks. I think the one thing we might be able to learn from h. neanderthalensis is how we as a species look to an outside observer. Do we really want them to look us in the eyes and tell us what they see?
I'm not certain we're prepared for it.
-Joe
Re:This has been on my mind for a few years ... (Score:5, Funny)
4. We could if we sent it to public school.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess it comes down to what we can learn versus the risks. I think the one thing we might be able to learn from h. neanderthalensis is how we as a species look to an outside observer. Do we really want them to look us in the eyes and tell us what they see?
Assuming they are cognitively capable of expressing an opinion as an outside observer, what horrible thing could they say about us that hasn't already been said about us by us (and is for a certain percentage of the population, depending upon what is said, absolutely true)?
So, yes, I would be interested in knowing how an outside observer views us. It may also prove of some use in girding us for reactions from an intelligent alien species, should we ever come across any.
I would also have to say that a li
RIP, Phil Hartman (Score:5, Funny)
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW.. and run off into the hills, or wherever.. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, I wonder: "Did little demons get inside and type it?" I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. But there is one thing I do know - when a man like my client slips and falls on a sidewalk in front of a public library, then he is entitled to no less than two million in compensatory damages, and two million in punitive damages. Thank you.
What I want to know is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever happened to the wooly mammoth? Years ago, some company was going to try to clone one, and have an elephant carry it to birth. That would have been cool.
A neanderthal, though? I dunno. There's just something creepy about cloning something to study... that can be embarrassed by the fact that it's being studied.
On the upside, I have no doubt that he/she would make it big in fetish porn.
Slave Caste (Score:5, Funny)
Let's bring them back to use as a subjugated slave caste doing jobs that are too hard or dangerous for humans.
What about modern diseases ? (Score:5, Interesting)
It is probable that reviving a human from so far in time means his DNA doesn't have the defenses we evolved against current diseases ?
Would our vaccines even work ?
Re:What about modern diseases ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just make it a reality TV show, you'll have plenty of volunteers.
Possible soon? (Score:4, Funny)
One top scientist was quoted as saying, "It's so easy a caveman could do it".
I think it's certainly worth the effort (Score:4, Interesting)
We shouldn't clone just one but enough for a family group with enough genetic diversity for breeding. Being higher level mammals, they would certainly need a cultural framework provided for upbringing. The ideal environment would probably be one where human researchers live with a troop of docile primates -- not chimps because they're too violent but along those lines, go the whole Jane Goodall route. The Neanderthal children will then have exposure to a more typical ape society as well as human. With this exposure, we can see if they're more human or ape-like in development. Can you imagine the scientific excitement if we discover they can speak? And just imagine our surprise if they do fall within the range of average human intelligence.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, what's wrong with that?
Re:NO (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, it's slippery-slope man!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Absolutely No. It is immoral and not just from a religious stand. Forget religious objections. It is simply ethically wrong. Where would it stop? It would go beyond just satisfying some intellectual curiosity to cloning species to harvest their organs.
What is ethically wrong about cloning anything. Period. I don't think the question even touched on harvesting organs. Your objection is simply irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The law moves slowly and now is the time to define personhood. Now, before a computer asks for its
Incorrect (Score:5, Interesting)
Second, "murder" does imply intent. And if (as described above) you INTEND to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting (which, again, is the DEFINITION of the rhythm method... look it up!), then you would be committing premeditated murder! According to your own logic.
You did bring up one good point, but you even got that one wrong. Life does not start at conception. A sperm is a living cell. An egg is a living cell. According to accepted definitions of "living organisms".
But if you meant that "human life" starts at conception -- a valid human "person" -- then again, by the arguments above, you had damned well better rethink your behavior. Because you are likely already a murderer.
You said it, I didn't. I am just pointing out where your facts and logic are faulty.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
yay, racial slurs! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not animals (Score:5, Informative)
They are not Homo Sapiens.
They are Homo neandertalinis.
Look it up!
And furthermore, humans are animals. So "not animals" only applies to plant life.
Re:Not animals (Score:5, Funny)
So "not animals" only applies to plant life.
And once again our fuzzy friend the fungus has been ignored.
Mushrooms have feelings too you insensitive clod.
Re:Not animals (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not animals (Score:5, Informative)
Neanderthals are considered to be part of the Homo Sapiens species. Wouldn't the concerns (and legalities) be the same as any human cloning project?
We both belong to the Homo genus [wikipedia.org], but Neanderthals are H. neanderthalensis, while we are H. sapiens.
Though here's an interesting paragraph on the Neanderthal page [wikipedia.org] that I didn't know before I browsed around on Wikipedia:
For some time, professionals debated whether Neanderthals should be classified as Homo neanderthalensis or as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the latter placing Neanderthals as a subspecies of Homo sapiens. Genetic statistical calculation (2006 results) suggests at least 5% of the modern human gene pool can be attributed to ancient admixture, with the European contribution being from the Neanderthal.[10] Some morphological studies support that Homo neanderthalensis is a separate species and not a subspecies. [11] Some suggest inherited admixture. Others, for example University of Cambridge Professor Paul Mellars, say "no evidence has been found of cultural interaction"[12] and evidence from mitochondrial DNA studies have been interpreted as evidence Neanderthals were not a subspecies of H. sapiens.[13] Homo sapiens mtDNA from Australia (Mungo Man 40ky ) is also not found in recent human genomic pool and mtDNA sequences for temporally comparative African specimens are not yet available.
Re:Not animals (Score:5, Insightful)
Very good point. To take it a little farther:
Cloning is not magical powers. The clone will be born as a baby, grow up to adulthood over time. Any neanderthal culture is long gone; it would have to be raised either as an animal or a human being. Assuming that we're not being monsters here (not the only possibility, but the one I'm going to go with), let's assume that we want the neanderthal to do well, and to be treated according to its mental ability.
So we're left with a few possibilities.
Case 1: It has sub-human intellect to the point where it is satisfied/only capable of the animal level of mental function. This is the easy one; we can treat it like a zoo animal, with only the moral considerations usually involved with such. Physical evidence says this is pretty unlikely, but we don't really know.
Case 2:It's capable of the lower levels of human functionality. Say, somewhere between Forest Gump and a chimpanzee. Well, in this case, we have an intelligent being, who is a ward of the state, and who is unlike any other being on earth. It has no family, and potentially no human rights. It's entirely subject to the whims of its creators, or to the vagaries of laws that don't cover it. And who is it going to play with as a child? What is it going to do when it's older? How much experimentation is legally and morally allowable? What if it's below the legal threshold of mental function for consent, but is undeniably intelligent?
So, huge minefield there. Awesome.
Case 3: The Neanderthal is as smart as we are.
Fuck. We have all the problems of Case 2, and more. We just made a person that is, by definition, part of the world's smallest and loneliest minority. He or she will never be able to live a remotely normal or fulfilling life. Furthermore, he's coming into the world with ready-made enemies in those opposed to cloning.
I'm genuinely conflicted about this. If someone went ahead and cloned a neanderthal, I would want to talk to him/her more than anything else in the world. Talking to an intelligent being that's not human... that would be an amazing thing.
But seriously... I can't see any way that this could really be morally ok.
Actually, it's probably 3 or close enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, look at the evidence we have for Neanderthals. They
- built tools to build other tools with. Chimps build improvised tools for the moment, then discard them. Building a hammer, so you can build an axe with it, is a human trait and implies quite a bit of intelligence.
- apparently had at least some level of work specialization and that would imply some form of commerce. At least as in, "me give you dead antelope, if you make me big strong stone spear." Again, that's not something chimps do. (Though Bonobos seem to have figured out stuff like "I'll give you two bananas for sex.")
- they built crude musical instruments (but then it took H. Sapiens a long time to make any better ones too.)
- they seem to have had (primitive) ceremonial burial, which in turn implies _some_ concept of afterlife or at least remorse. That's a bit of abstract concept there. You don't see a cat giving her dead kitten an elaborate burial.
- they decorated themselves with crude "jewellery" and paints (i.e., basically cosmetics). Again, it seems to suggest some kind of society and the brain power where that kind of thing matters. E.g., the concept of a social status. You don't even bother carrying, say, a necklace of sabertooth teeth unless that tells the others something about you martial prowess and that matters somehow. Or maybe if you have some kind of a mythology where that invokes the power of that tiger, but that's even more complex thinking.
- they skinned animals and made primitive clothes and shelters. (Well, primitive by our standards, but quite ahead of just digging a burrow like an animal.)
- apparently some figured out how to use coal, where it was easily accessible. (Homo Sapiens never really bothered too much with it until the industrial age.)
Etc.
I'd say that's clearly ahead of animal level. I'd say it's at the very least Forest Gump level.
Re:Not animals (Score:5, Insightful)
Your post is very interesting, and I like it and agree with almost all your points except
He or she will never be able to live a remotely normal or fulfilling life.
I am sure that this person, who is different physically in some ways from the average person, can have a fulfilling and happy life. Even now we have people that are much more disfigured than a neanderthal would be (and who says that with normal shaving and toilette he/she wouldn't in fact look attractive, what with being tall and extremely muscular), and they still have happy and fulfilling lives, for the most part.
Re:queue... (Score:5, Funny)
Geico would make an Obscene CLone Fall
Re:No. (Score:5, Interesting)
I would suggest that you go learn some molecular biology before you make comments like this.
Here is how you would do it.
1) Sequence the ancient DNA and assemble it until you feel you have a "complete" genome sequence.
2) Either mutate an existing human genome using the technology Sangamo as or assemble a complete synthetic genome using technology such as that Synthetic Genomics is developing.
3) Replace the genome in an existing human cell with the Neanderthal artificial genome or create a artificial cell using the artificial genome (this is the part which hasn't really been demonstrated yet). Alternatively if one can create an artificial nucleus you could presumably transfer it into an enucleated human cell using the standard nuclear transfer techniques used in cloning.
4) Take the neanderthal cell and subject it to current iPS procedures to generate a neanderthal stem cell.
5) Transfer the nucleus of this cell into a human egg (standard cloning procedures again).
6) Implant said egg (now functioning as a fertilized neanderthal zygote) into a human host (or if synthetic wombs are available one of those).
7) Wait ~7-9 months for either C-section birth or natural birth.
Of course there are a lot of things that can go wrong in this process so one is probably going to have to do it multiple times. But its the same basic methods that will probably be used to resurrect the woolly mammoth.
There is no need to undertake gene therapy on any human child or adult. I cannot see any "unethical" argument because one never has to work with a human embryo. I would also point out that we will be doing human embryo modifications relatively soon to correct genetic defects. Watch and see how the debate develops once the genes for intelligence become more clearly known. Argue the morality of knowingly giving birth to a child of below average intelligence!