Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Playing God with Neanderthals
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 1 of 144 (547847)
02-23-2010 11:39 AM


In a recent article in Discover magazine, a geneticist was discussing a project sequencing and rebuilding the Neanderthal genome. The end result could be used to literally bring Neanderthals back from extinction.
It was suggested that either a chimp or a human woman volunteer could be used to bring a fetus to term. Frankly, I suspect it would have to be a human to work, and I don't think they will have too much of a problem finding a volunteer.
The article also mentions questions of morality involved in the project.
Perhaps I am profoundly immoral, but I don't really see the issue.
Here are the things I can think of as "problems" for this being, assuming the project were to happen.
1) Psychological - issues around being "the only one of my kind". This assumes that Neanderthals are so profoundly different than us that he/she would fall WELL OUTSIDE the range of human appearance and would feel profoundly isolated.
I don't see how this is any different than people born with severe disabilities or sexually ambiguous genitalia. They too are "outside" the normal set of human experience. Is it immoral to allow them to live?
2) Unforeseen medical problems - We don't know, nor could we know, the full range of medical issues a Neanderthal could have when thrust into the regular world. This could range from the moderate (and almost certain) dietary issues like complete lactose intolerance to severe peanut allergies. They could include a vulnerability to diseases we don't even realize are still present given our robust inherited tolerance developed over thousands of years.
Could this child be born into a "bubble boy" existence? If that is immoral, should we abort any fetus which likewise would be born into such an existence?
3) Playing "God" - Some might object to the fact that we would be bringing a species back from extinction. However, I've never heard anyone raise morality issues around a suggestion that be close the thilacine or the dodo. So, it seems like this is an object to our bringing back specifically a species of human.
Frankly, I don't get the objection. I understand moral issues around "playing God" when were talking about developing weapons which take life away from people. However, in this case we are giving life to something which otherwise would not exist.
In my view "morality" is about depriving someone ELSE of something or forcing unwanted things upon someone. Punching someone who does not want to be punch is immoral. Punching yourself or someone who ASKS you to punch them is not.
One could argue that this being is having "life" forced upon them, but given that they don't exist prior to this event, how can it be immoral?
Anyway, don't know where this should go threadwise, just thought it was an interesting topic for discussion.
Edited by Admin, : Change title.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-23-2010 1:53 PM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-23-2010 1:55 PM Nuggin has replied
 Message 5 by Apothecus, posted 02-23-2010 2:17 PM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 10 by slevesque, posted 02-23-2010 5:12 PM Nuggin has replied
 Message 15 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 02-24-2010 6:05 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 02-24-2010 11:08 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 144 (547865)
02-23-2010 1:38 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Playing God with Neanderthals thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 144 (547867)
02-23-2010 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
02-23-2010 11:39 AM


I'd be afraid of something like the scene from Aliens: Resurrection:
http://www.movieweb.com/movie/FI2J4729Bezm48/HULwIPNLDAMpQM
where they get such beauties as:
and
or to the point of this one:
that begged "Kill me" to be put out of its misery.
That would be terrible. And immoral too, imo.
Not that I am totally against the idea, and I do think it would be pretty cool if it all worked out well.
But I do think we should tread lightly and make sure we know what we're doing before we start cranking out the clones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 02-23-2010 11:39 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 4 of 144 (547868)
02-23-2010 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
02-23-2010 11:39 AM


I don't see how this is any different than people born with severe disabilities or sexually ambiguous genitalia. They too are "outside" the normal set of human experience. Is it immoral to allow them to live?
No, but it would be immoral to deliberately cause someone to be born with these problems just out of scientific curiosity.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 02-23-2010 11:39 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Nuggin, posted 02-23-2010 4:00 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2411 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 5 of 144 (547871)
02-23-2010 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
02-23-2010 11:39 AM


Cavemen
Hey Nuggin.
I don't see an issue either. I think this experiment would into the "meh" category as far as historicity of medical experimentation goes. The moral argument, IMO (aside from the "playing God" objection) is a non issue. C'mon. Tuskegee, anyone?
Personally, I think the more of these guys we have around, the better:
Have a good one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 02-23-2010 11:39 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 6 of 144 (547872)
02-23-2010 2:36 PM


The anomalies you site in humans are not intended. They happen. In most cases these are not known until after birth. Still, there are early tests that can be used to detect some such problems and people use them today to decide whether to abort or to carry. We can decide to end what we can strongly assume to be a torturous existence for this being if brought to term.
Resurrecting Neanderthal, knowing the high probability of problems, physical and psychological, is akin to deliberately creating a torturous life. IMHO the immorality is plain.
The problem I see is that if it can be done someone will want to do it. I wouldn't expect any attempt to be made soon since we know next to nothing about Neanderthal mothers and how compatible a modern human vessel might be. This is not just a genetic issue. The proteomics of the modern womb may not be suitable.

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Apothecus, posted 02-23-2010 3:08 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2411 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 7 of 144 (547874)
02-23-2010 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by AZPaul3
02-23-2010 2:36 PM


Hey AZPaul3.
Resurrecting Neanderthal, knowing the high probability of problems, physical and psychological, is akin to deliberately creating a torturous life.
How do you know the "high" probability of these problems? Can you point me toward some research which backs up this claim?
There may have been multiple reasons (physical, environmental, etc) which allowed H. Sapiens to evolve and flourish as opposed to the Neantherthals. However, as far as I've been able to ascertain, one of those reasons may have been a violent genocidal act or acts perpetrated by early humans.
If that's the case, does it change your views of whether or not it would be immoral to "resurrect" them?

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by AZPaul3, posted 02-23-2010 2:36 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by AZPaul3, posted 02-23-2010 4:16 PM Apothecus has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 8 of 144 (547884)
02-23-2010 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Adequate
02-23-2010 1:55 PM


No, but it would be immoral to deliberately cause someone to be born with these problems just out of scientific curiosity.
Well, obviously if they knew ahead of time that there was a severe disability they wouldn't move all the way through the pregnancy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-23-2010 1:55 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 9 of 144 (547886)
02-23-2010 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Apothecus
02-23-2010 3:08 PM


Since we have not done such a cloning the results are presently unknown. The high probability of problems is inferred and given in the article itself.
... one of those reasons may have been a violent genocidal act or acts perpetrated by early humans.
If that's the case, does it change your views of whether or not it would be immoral to "resurrect" them?
No. We are not talking about resurrecting an entire population of some bygone species to be reintroduced into their natural environment, but of (assumed) sentient individuals far removed from the niche their bodies, their brains and their psyches evolved to inhabit. A niche that no longer exists. Fish out of water comes to mind.
Until we know more, a hell of a lot more, about what we are contemplating here can anyone honestly believe the probability of inflicting great harm, egregiously tormenting a sentient being, is minimal?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Apothecus, posted 02-23-2010 3:08 PM Apothecus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-24-2010 11:18 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 10 of 144 (547892)
02-23-2010 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
02-23-2010 11:39 AM


I would think it immoral from the point of view of if there are huge risks of it having a disgusting life.
On the other hand, if we could perfect the thing to the point of knowing he would successfully grow, why not ?
For my part I think neanderthals were pretty much humans, but with overly atheltic genes and capacities. I do think the popular picture of a dumb brute is probably far from the reality of who they were, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were just as intelligent as us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 02-23-2010 11:39 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Meldinoor, posted 02-23-2010 5:43 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 12 by Nuggin, posted 02-23-2010 6:24 PM slevesque has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 11 of 144 (547897)
02-23-2010 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by slevesque
02-23-2010 5:12 PM


The "dumb brute" view of Neanderthals is not one that I think holds much sway among scientists. According to what I've read, Neanderthals possessed similar intelligence (larger brains on average, but that's not necessarily a good indication of intelligence) and technology equivalent to that possessed by modern humans at the time.
slevesque writes:
For my part I think neanderthals were pretty much humans
That's what being of the Homo genus means.
slevesque writes:
but with overly atheltic genes and capacities
Well, they were stockier and their ribs flared out, making their torso more of a barrel shape. Their skulls differed significantly in shape from any modern human race, with a pronounced brow ridge and lack of a protruding chin etc.
Besides a slightly different anatomy, I think a Neanderthal would have quite a lot in common with us. I'd be most interested in whether it could speak like modern humans do.
I say go ahead with the experiment, if it can be done! Imagine what we would stand to learn about human evolution by bringing back our closest cousin species.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by slevesque, posted 02-23-2010 5:12 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 12 of 144 (547900)
02-23-2010 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by slevesque
02-23-2010 5:12 PM


I would think it immoral from the point of view of if there are huge risks of it having a disgusting life.
If by this you mean that it would have a serious birth defect or something, then I would say we abort the fetus when we see signs of them.
However, if by this you mean that simply being a Neanderthal was disgusting, it raises the moralistic question, shouldn't we force all the "disgusting" species into extinction in order to spare them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by slevesque, posted 02-23-2010 5:12 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by slevesque, posted 02-23-2010 10:36 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 13 of 144 (547926)
02-23-2010 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Nuggin
02-23-2010 6:24 PM


I meant birth defect.
My personal opinion being that Neanderthals are humans, I would be against abortion in this situation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Nuggin, posted 02-23-2010 6:24 PM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Huntard, posted 02-24-2010 5:16 AM slevesque has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 14 of 144 (547943)
02-24-2010 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by slevesque
02-23-2010 10:36 PM


slevesque writes:
I meant birth defect.
My personal opinion being that Neanderthals are humans, I would be against abortion in this situation.
Make up your mind. Do you want it it have a "disgusting life" or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by slevesque, posted 02-23-2010 10:36 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by slevesque, posted 02-25-2010 12:55 AM Huntard has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 15 of 144 (547945)
02-24-2010 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
02-23-2010 11:39 AM


In a recent article in Discover magazine, a geneticist was discussing a project sequencing and rebuilding the Neanderthal genome. The end result could be used to literally bring Neanderthals back from extinction.
You don't say what the intended purpose would be. We might learn something about Neanderthal's appearance and physical and mental capabilities, but you could probably work a lot of that out from their DNA. A Neanderthal baby born into a Homo Sapien world would teach us nothing new about the way they lived and their culture.
It was suggested that either a chimp or a human woman volunteer could be used to bring a fetus to term. Frankly, I suspect it would have to be a human to work, and I don't think they will have too much of a problem finding a volunteer.
I don't think there'll be a long queue but some people are desparate enough to do anything for money. But can you not imagine the potential psychological damage you might do to the mother, making her bear a child of a different species and then have it taken away from her?
I don't see how this is any different than people born with severe disabilities or sexually ambiguous genitalia. They too are "outside" the normal set of human experience. Is it immoral to allow them to live?
As others have said, we don't deliberately make disabled babies for any purpose, and certainly not to carry out experiments.
Could this child be born into a "bubble boy" existence?
Yeah, why not? Sounds like a lot of fun.
Playing "God" - Some might object to the fact that we would be bringing a species back from extinction. However, I've never heard anyone raise morality issues around a suggestion that be close the thilacine or the dodo.
A dodo wouldn't be aware of its sudden reappearance. And we could probably find a reserve for it to live in. Where are your Neanderthals going to live? In some sort of refugee camp of bubble tents?
Punching someone who does not want to be punch is immoral. Punching yourself or someone who ASKS you to punch them is not.
There's only one person who's asking to be punched!
One could argue that this being is having "life" forced upon them, but given that they don't exist prior to this event, how can it be immoral?
There are a lot of Homo Sapiens that don't exist prior to this event. Why not just have Homo Sapien children - at least they'll be born into a world that they fit into.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 02-23-2010 11:39 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Nuggin, posted 02-24-2010 10:14 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied
 Message 24 by Blue Jay, posted 02-24-2010 1:11 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024