Playing God with Neanderthals

Hi, Chimp. Honestly, Chimp, this statement tells me that you don't know enough women. I'm quite confident that I have met several women who would be very interested in the position.And, I know quite a few people who think that they are part Neanderthal, anyway.----- How can you make a statement like this? Do all Homo sapiens "fit in," in your mind? Who gets to decide who "fits in"? And, on what basis is "fitting in" assessed? Do autistic people "fit in"? Do shy people "fit in"? Do very tall people who hit their heads on doorframes "fit in"? Do people who can only speak Sami "fit in"?Who's to say Neanderthals wouldn't "fit in" here? And, by what criteria?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Paul. What is the logic behind this argument? Are you arguing that something should not be brought into existence if it is likely to contract a disease that could potentially kill it?So, should we prevent Tasmanian devils from reproducing, because their babies are very likely going to die of facial tumor disease anyway?----- We didn't evolve in supermarkets, Paul. We aren't any more suited for supermarkets or airplanes or televisions than Neanderthal was. There is no meaningful biological distinction to be made here, so all of this is irrelevant.-----On the other hand, I’m not sure what the point of resurrecting Neanderthals would be. I don’t know how much we’d be able to learn about them from it, so I’m not sure I can justify the funding.Personally, I don’t understand why the concept should evoke such strong reactions or opinions as it does: it seems like such a neutral issue, that the only reason to react at all is to think it’s either really cool or a big waste of time and money.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Paul.Is extinction better than suffering?
My impulse is to say, "no."----- Nonsense: I think it's perfectly on-topic. ----- Adapted culturally, not biologically. Since we both seem to agree that Neanderthals were also sentient, why couldn’t they also adapt culturally to supermarkets, the way we have?Edited by Bluejay, : dBCode error

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Chimp. Two things:

1. Creating Neanderthals isn’t the same as deliberately creating somebody with a major disorder. It’s like creating a baby: you don’t know whether they’re going to have a disorder, nor can you really argue that you know the probabilities or possibilities of their having a disorder. To me, the objections about potential health problems apply just as well to baby Homo sapiens as they do to Neanderthals, so it’s a wholly inconsistent argument to make (unless you also advocate mandatory genetic testing before people are allowed to give birth: then your argument would be consistent).
   ​
2. Creating autistic people to study would be stupid, because there are plenty of autistic people around to study already. There are not, however, plenty of Neanderthals around to study, so creating a new one deliberately makes a whole lot more sense than creating a new autistic person, even though it may ultimately prove to be uninformative in the end.

----- I really have no intention of ever cloning a Neanderthal myself. I’m rather neutral on the topic: I just don't see why it should evoke such a passionate response from anybody.My question to anti-Neanderthalists is, "What's the big deal?"
My question to pro-Neandethalists is, "What's the point?"

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Chimp. You're making some big assumptions here. Who said anything about poking or prodding or fencing in? Is that what you think scientists want to do?The biggest points of interest in Neanderthals would be comparing Neanderthal growth, development and behavior to Homo sapiens. For that, all a scientist would do is follow the baby around and write down what it does in a journal, take some photographs and video clips, and compare its behavior to the behavior of other babies.Do you have any children? If so, then you realize that what I just described is pretty much what parents do with their Homo sapiens babies, anyway. So, what's so morally repugnant about doing it to a Neanderthal baby?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Nuggin.Good points.The way to go about it would, of course, be to create a whole population of Neanderthals, and ask for volunteers to participate in studies. As long as we followed that structure, I think it would be a worthwhile thing to do.Still, without a priori planning, we're also running the risk of wasting tons of time and money just to make a new ethnic group.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Chimp. You're still making that same assumption, though. I proposed that we create a population of Neanderthals and hope that they volunteer to participate in scientific studies. What's wrong with that?And, what would you consider a good reason for bringing a sentient being into the world? My wife and I had a baby because...we like babies
we think they're cute
we wanted to carry on the family name(s)
we thought it would be fun or interesting
we wanted to do what our role models (our parents) did
all of our best friends were doing it
etc.* Disclaimer: these reasons are not all necessarily true.How is any of this, in principle, any better ethically than creating a baby because we want to observe it scientifically?There is a preponderance of people who think that tacking the word "scientific" onto something somehow makes it unethical, when, in reality, there is very little difference between why scientists want to do X and why laypersons want to do X. It's just that scientists are more up-front about why they're doing thngs, and laypersons are more apt to delude themselves into thinking they have an ethically superior reason.I am quite confident that people who want to clone Neanderthals do not intend to treat a cloned Neanderthal like university property, and I am equally confident that all ethical standards will be upheld when studying the child.Remember, I'm still neutral on this specific topic, but your particular argument has come very close to striking a nerve. Why do so many people think scientists don't know about ethics?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Chimp. It probably makes more sense.But Neanderthals would give us better evolutionary insights into diseases than would transgenic humans.Nuggin's point was that we just don't know what we might learn from it. I think it's a good point, but it's kind of hard to justify funding for a project based on that.Edited by Bluejay, : emphasize "evolutionary"

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Apothecus. Do you think such people need resurrected Neanderthals to do the things you describe here?What would restricting the cloning of Neanderthals do to stop such people from doing such things as that?Edited by Bluejay, : Added second question.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Apothecus. Chimp wasn't just assuming that it could be a possible result: he was assuming that it would be the result.----- And, who is assuming such a thing?----- I wasn't complaining that Chimp thought it was possible: I was complaining that he assumed that it would happen.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Chimp.You certainly have an extremely bleak and pessimistic opinion of people. Yes they would. You can't really learn much about evolution if you don't have two different things to compare to one another.----- Um... we didn't evolve from chimpanzees, either.----- So, let me ask you again: what would be a good reason for bringing a new life into the world?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Chimp I'm pretty sure we can go ahead and predict that it will have profound benefits for us. Furthermore, Neanderthals stand to benefit greatly too, don't they? They certainly aren't benefiting from being extinct.----- But, they haven’t overlooked these things: that’s what I’ve been trying to tell you.When somebody said, Let’s clone a Neanderthal, you heard them say, Let’s clone a Neanderthal right now without putting anymore thought into it: we’ve got this genome sitting herelet’s see what happens when we stick it into an egg and impregnate some lady with it, whether or not she wants it.Why did you make that inference?----- I agree with you.But, this is exactly what we're doing right now: we're debating the ethical and practical implications of cloning Neanderthals. So, what’s the problem here? Do you want to discuss it, or do you just want to keep saying that we need to discuss it?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Chimp. I'm about the drive Straggler insane with a more-complicated-than-necessary answer, but your question doesn't contain just one bit of information.First, I would consider "scientific knowledge" a valid reason to clone a Neanderthal.That's without adding the bit about a "controlled and restricted environment."Now, if it was to be kept in a controlled and restricted environment, the question then becomes whether or not I was aware beforehand that this would likely be the case, and what my purpose for keeping it in that condition would be.If the purpose is to keep the specimen in good condition for study, then I would have a problem with it.If the purpose is to keep the specimen healthy for its own good, then I would not have a problem with it. It would be just like a bubble-boy scenario.But, I don't view this as a particularly likely scenario. Sure, I'll admit that its possible that Neanderthal will have serious biological compatibility issues with the modern world, but I don't think that that's going to be the case, and we'll never know until we try to clone one anyway. So, I don't see that point in getting hung up on it.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Straggler. I meant that I was about to say a whole lot without actually answering his question directly, which you tend to dislike.----- There's a role reversal if I've ever seen one.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Chimp. When I said "purpose," I was referring to the purpose of "caging" the Neanderthal, not the purpose of the whole project.I don't think scientific study is any less morally appropriate than any of the usual reasons why people have children, as long as the child is treated with the same respect and dignity of other children.----- You assume correctly.----- Yes... with the additional hope that some of them would be willing to volunteer for clinical trials and other studies so we could learn about them. I would hope for a free exchange of knowledge and ideas between human and Neanderthal.----- Oh, I misunderstood you. You were just talking about quarantine procedures?I don’t have any moral objections to that at all.In response to your concerns about how long the Neanderthal would be forced to remain in those conditions, I can see that we may have problems. Perhaps it should be established beforehand that we will grant the child the same rights as any human: i.e., the individual has the right to make its own decisions after some predetermined legal age (18, in the USA: I think it’s similar elsewhere?), before which it will be assigned a legal guardian to make these decisions. Perhaps legal guardianship should be granted to the head of the researchers’ department, or some other person, rather than to the researchers themselves, just to help avoid conflicts of interest.As long as we establish beforehand that laws that apply to humans also apply to Neanderthals, I don’t think there will be ethical problems. And, I think all of us can agree that such legislation should be in effect before Neanderthal cloning proceeds.I should also point out that biological research done on all birds and mammals (minus rats and mice, and plus octopus) has to be approved and supervised by an ethics committee; and that human research has even more stringent ethical guidelines. So, the scientific community already has the infrastructure in place to ensure that all ethical considerations are accounted for. However, I will grant that the nature of cloning research may make it highly susceptible to loopholism, which will require greater levels of oversight as cloning projects proceed.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.