Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Playing God with Neanderthals
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 76 of 144 (549551)
03-08-2010 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Blue Jay
03-08-2010 4:53 PM


I Think......
I'm about the drive Straggler insane with a more-complicated-than-necessary answer....
Actually I don't think what you are saying is very different to what I was saying. Slightly different emphasis and more unequivocally pro the idea on your part. But fundamentally I don't disgagree with anything you have said here. I am less sure of my position than you are yours. But not against what you are saying at all.
I worry about the consequences (and thus morality) of inflicting this sort of thing on the sentient individual. But on balance I am kinda pro the whole "bring back neanderthals" position.
I think............

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Blue Jay, posted 03-08-2010 4:53 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Blue Jay, posted 03-10-2010 3:22 PM Straggler has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 77 of 144 (549591)
03-08-2010 10:41 PM


What's the difference ...
Between how a neanderthal clone should be treated and how a chimpanzee should be treated?
the Jane Goodall Institute Homepage
Ethically and morally I see no difference.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 03-09-2010 4:53 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 78 of 144 (549601)
03-09-2010 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Blue Jay
03-08-2010 4:53 PM


Hi Bluejay
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.
Well if the ultimate purpose is not to study the cloned Neanderthal, what is the point of the exercise?
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.
I assume in this case you mean where you don't know beforehand whether or not it would have to live in the bubble for its own health. So I assume your main purpose behind resurrecting Neanderthals is simply to allow their species to live again.
However, in my view, the first Neanderthal(s) would have to be kept in some kind of controlled environment and subjected to a lot of testing (not necessarily inhumane testing). This would be for its health and even for ours. Aside from possible behavioural incompatibility, we would have to carry out all kinds of tests for susceptibility to diseases being transferred both ways.
Anyway, let's assume we take the chance and even accept the fact that the first few individuals have to be brought up in very controlled conditions for their benefit and ours. What next? What is the ultimate objective? What do we do with them when they grow to adulthood? Are they forever to be kept in a controlled environment or do we grant them freedom? This is where I foresee the biggest problems. I don't want to get too far ahead so I'll let you make an initial response before I go into detail on the problems I foresee.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Blue Jay, posted 03-08-2010 4:53 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Taq, posted 03-09-2010 12:51 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied
 Message 86 by Blue Jay, posted 03-10-2010 6:23 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

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


Message 79 of 144 (549602)
03-09-2010 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by RAZD
03-08-2010 10:41 PM


Re: What's the difference ...
Hi Radz
Between how a neanderthal clone should be treated and how a chimpanzee should be treated?
the Jane Goodall Institute Homepage
Is there a specific article on this subject on Jane Goodall's website? I couldn't see one. If there is, please could you point me to it. Sorry if it's staring me in the face.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 03-08-2010 10:41 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 80 of 144 (549646)
03-09-2010 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
03-09-2010 4:50 AM


Anyway, let's assume we take the chance and even accept the fact that the first few individuals have to be brought up in very controlled conditions for their benefit and ours. What next? What is the ultimate objective? What do we do with them when they grow to adulthood? Are they forever to be kept in a controlled environment or do we grant them freedom? This is where I foresee the biggest problems. I don't want to get too far ahead so I'll let you make an initial response before I go into detail on the problems I foresee.
A good model may be feral children. These are children who have serious social handicaps due to childhood trauma or lack of contact with other humans during early development. These children may very well lack the social skills and cognitive skills that neanderthals would lack in an H. sapien culture. Scientists and psychologists are able to study these children in an ethical and respectful manner, and I don't see why neanderthals could not be studied in a similar fashion.
The difference here is that no scientist is purposefully creating feral children. This has been a long running ethical divide in science. What we can do does not line up with what we should do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 03-09-2010 4:50 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 03-10-2010 5:01 AM Taq has replied

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


Message 81 of 144 (549725)
03-10-2010 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Taq
03-09-2010 12:51 PM


Hi Taq
A good model may be feral children. These are children who have serious social handicaps due to childhood trauma or lack of contact with other humans during early development. These children may very well lack the social skills and cognitive skills that neanderthals would lack in an H. sapien culture. Scientists and psychologists are able to study these children in an ethical and respectful manner, and I don't see why neanderthals could not be studied in a similar fashion.
Let me jump straight to what I see as the most obviously controversial problem. Whether we keep the neanderthals in some kind of controlled environment, let them live as equals in our society, or send them off to live in the woods, they will to some extent be in contact with HSS (us). What would then be the impact if one or more of us fell in love with them, or was raped by them (or vice versa - I don't want to be politically incorrect!) and produced hybrid children?
Should we allow our 2 species to mix eventually into a hybrid species? It would be taking the issue of racism and multiculturalism to a whole new level!
I don't know whether or not this would happen, or even could happen. But it surely has to be given really serious consideration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Taq, posted 03-09-2010 12:51 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 03-10-2010 11:13 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied
 Message 87 by Blue Jay, posted 03-10-2010 6:32 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 82 of 144 (549746)
03-10-2010 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
03-10-2010 5:01 AM


Let me jump straight to what I see as the most obviously controversial problem. Whether we keep the neanderthals in some kind of controlled environment, let them live as equals in our society, or send them off to live in the woods, they will to some extent be in contact with HSS (us). What would then be the impact if one or more of us fell in love with them, or was raped by them (or vice versa - I don't want to be politically incorrect!) and produced hybrid children?
The easy, but still controversial, remedy would be forced sterilization (e.g. vasectomy). This was once standard for those with Down syndrome, and I wouldn't be surprised if this still occurred.
Just as an interesting aside, I watched a show a while back that dealt with feral children. The observation was that there are important stages in child development that require human contact. If children do not have contact with other humans during this time they will be permanantly disabled. One scientist had the idea of seeing what happened if a chimp was raised as a human would be. He raised a chimp alongside his own child. The experiment came to a screeching halt because of an unexpected result. The chimp didn't act any differently, but the scientist's child started acting like a chimp. It could be that we are looking at this from the wrong direction. Modern humans may be just as much a part of this experiment as the neanderthal child. This experiment may end up telling us more about ourselves than it does about neanderthals.
Should we allow our 2 species to mix eventually into a hybrid species?
Some would argue that we already are. There is some genetic evidence that modern H. sap carries a limited set of neanderthal genes due to interbreeding between archaic H sap and neanderthals. However, the lack of a surviving neanderthal mitochondrial lineage rules out a direct female ancestor in modern H. sap populations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 03-10-2010 5:01 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 03-10-2010 12:06 PM Taq has replied

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


Message 83 of 144 (549751)
03-10-2010 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Taq
03-10-2010 11:13 AM


JUC writes:
Let me jump straight to what I see as the most obviously controversial problem. Whether we keep the neanderthals in some kind of controlled environment, let them live as equals in our society, or send them off to live in the woods, they will to some extent be in contact with HSS (us). What would then be the impact if one or more of us fell in love with them, or was raped by them (or vice versa - I don't want to be politically incorrect!) and produced hybrid children?
Taq replies:
The easy, but still controversial, remedy would be forced sterilization (e.g. vasectomy). This was once standard for those with Down syndrome, and I wouldn't be surprised if this still occurred.
OK, so that means no natural reproduction. All neanderthals must be cloned. They'll never get either to live amongst us as equals or to live and breed "normally" in a reserve. But remember they are not abnormal or disabled. They are absolutely normal. What if they are intelligent enough to express outrage at being sterilized and generally treated like this, as it is very likely they would?
One scientist had the idea of seeing what happened if a chimp was raised as a human would be. He raised a chimp alongside his own child. The experiment came to a screeching halt because of an unexpected result. The chimp didn't act any differently, but the scientist's child started acting like a chimp. It could be that we are looking at this from the wrong direction. Modern humans may be just as much a part of this experiment as the neanderthal child. This experiment may end up telling us more about ourselves than it does about neanderthals.
Good point. I hadn't thought of that. It may make us see different ways of behaviour that we had never even entertained. As it's unknown, that could come with as many problems as benefits though.
It also leads to another point and possible problem. These new neanderthals will have no cultural link to the extinct neanderthals. They might as well be regarded as completely new species that just happens to have the same DNA as an extinct species. That refers back to an earlier point I made. Why specifically create neanderthals? Why not just genetically modify HSS or chimpanzees. What is it about neanderthals that makes them "just right" for this purpose? The first generations will have to be brought up by HSS, so it could take many many generations for the neanderthals to re-invent their own natural culture, with no guarantee that it would closely resemble the culture of extinct neanderthals. So again, what's the point?
JUC writes:
Should we allow our 2 species to mix eventually into a hybrid species?
Taq replies:
Some would argue that we already are. There is some genetic evidence that modern H. sap carries a limited set of neanderthal genes due to interbreeding between archaic H sap and neanderthals. However, the lack of a surviving neanderthal mitochondrial lineage rules out a direct female ancestor in modern H. sap populations.
If we do currently have any neanderthal genes, that will likely only exist in some races, because I don't think that Australian aborigines, for example, ever came in contact with neanderthals. In any case, today, we are what we are. Do we want to change that?
Although I am very pessimistic about the whole idea, I do share Straggler's natural excitement at the idea of seeing neanderthals. It's just I can't see any practical, ethical or reasonable way of doing it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 03-10-2010 11:13 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Taq, posted 03-10-2010 1:33 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 84 of 144 (549754)
03-10-2010 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
03-10-2010 12:06 PM


OK, so that means no natural reproduction.
Even with tubal ligation or vasectomies it is still possible to harvest gametes and allow a natural child birth. The fertilization may be in vitro, but the rest of the process could be 100% in vivo.
Further down the line someone may very well produce a modern human-neanderthal hybrid. From there we could reassess whether or not interbreeding would be safe.
It also leads to another point and possible problem. These new neanderthals will have no cultural link to the extinct neanderthals. They might as well be regarded as completely new species that just happens to have the same DNA as an extinct species.
They would be 100% neanderthal, assuming the reconstruction prior to cloning is accurate. They wouldn't be a new species any more than a wolf raised from a pup around humans would be a new species.
Why specifically create neanderthals? Why not just genetically modify HSS or chimpanzees. What is it about neanderthals that makes them "just right" for this purpose?
There are methodological issues here. With the technology we have it is easier to create a new strand de novo with the needed sequence than it is to specifically mutate a section of chimp or human DNA.
As to "Why neanderthal?", we don't have any other genomes to study. There is no surviving H. erectus, H. habilis, or even H. floresiensis DNA to study. Scientists would be equally interested in these genomes, but they are lost to history. What neanderthals can show us is the last baby steps to becoming the species we are today. That has always been an interest of humanity since we first started being curious about the natural world.
If we do currently have any neanderthal genes, that will likely only exist in some races, because I don't think that Australian aborigines, for example, ever came in contact with neanderthals. In any case, today, we are what we are. Do we want to change that?
Aren't we changing that right now? I don't have any numbers to back me up, but I think it is safe to assume that interbreeding between classic human groups has increased dramatically in the last 50 years. Our own US president is a perfect example. Are you suggesting that we should stop interracial marriages?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 03-10-2010 12:06 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 85 of 144 (549765)
03-10-2010 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Straggler
03-08-2010 6:03 PM


Re: I Think......
Hi, Straggler.
Straggler writes:
Bluejay writes:
I'm about the drive Straggler insane with a more-complicated-than-necessary answer....
Actually I don't think what you are saying is very different to what I was saying.
I meant that I was about to say a whole lot without actually answering his question directly, which you tend to dislike.
-----
Straggler writes:
I am less sure of my position than you are yours.
There's a role reversal if I've ever seen one.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Straggler, posted 03-08-2010 6:03 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 86 of 144 (549769)
03-10-2010 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
03-09-2010 4:50 AM


Hi, Chimp.
Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:
Bluejay writes:
If the purpose is to keep the specimen in good condition for study, then I would have a problem with it.
Well if the ultimate purpose is not to study the cloned Neanderthal, what is the point of the exercise?
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.
-----
JUC writes:
I assume in this case you mean where you don't know beforehand whether or not it would have to live in the bubble for its own health.
You assume correctly.
-----
JUC writes:
So I assume your main purpose behind resurrecting Neanderthals is simply to allow their species to live again.
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.
-----
JUC writes:
However, in my view, the first Neanderthal(s) would have to be kept in some kind of controlled environment and subjected to a lot of testing (not necessarily inhumane testing).
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 03-09-2010 4:50 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 87 of 144 (549770)
03-10-2010 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
03-10-2010 5:01 AM


Hybrids
Hi, Chimp.
JUC writes:
What would then be the impact if one or more of us fell in love with them, or was raped by them (or vice versa - I don't want to be politically incorrect!) and produced hybrid children?
Should we allow our 2 species to mix eventually into a hybrid species? It would be taking the issue of racism and multiculturalism to a whole new level!
I don't know whether or not this would happen, or even could happen. But it surely has to be given really serious consideration.
Certainly, it needs to be considered.
However, if we allow Neanderthals and humans to have the same rights, as I am assuming we should, and if we consider both Neanderthals and humans capable of legal consent, I don't see that there is anything that can or should be done about this.
Now, if we discover some major differences in cognitive function that make us skeptical of Neanderthals' ability to give informed, legal consent, then it becomes a question of whether interspecies relations constitute bestiality.
However, I see no reason, as yet, to assume that Neanderthals are not capable of giving informed consent, so I don't think much can be done about this.
It can certainly be a tricky situation.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 03-10-2010 5:01 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 03-11-2010 6:14 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 88 of 144 (549857)
03-11-2010 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Blue Jay
03-10-2010 6:32 PM


Re: Hybrids
Hi Bluejay
I've outlined just some of the potential problems and dilemmas that I foresee could arise from reviving neanderthals, so I would summarise as follows.
- We just don't know how exactly what they'd be like, how well they might integrate with us, deserve equal rights to us, etc, which means that we wouldn't know until we "produced" them how we would ultimately end up dealing with them.
- We would therefore have to have a plan, in advance, to cater for any foreseeable eventuality. Yet, there are numerous eventualities that could arise where I can see no satisfactory or ethical outcome.
For example, if we just cannot integrate with them, we would be left with the following options:
1) Keeping them in some kind of zoo/reserve, which might be deemed an unethical way to treat these humans however hard it may be for us to get on with them; or
2) Deliberately making them extinct again, which could also be regarded as unethical.
So before any such project goes ahead, we must first find an ethical way out of the above and all other possible eventualities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Blue Jay, posted 03-10-2010 6:32 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 89 of 144 (597677)
12-23-2010 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Straggler
03-08-2010 2:04 PM


Londoners...
The point being made in the show was that there is already such diversity of appearance amongst Homo Sapiens, that some-one would have to be very far removed to be noticed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Straggler, posted 03-08-2010 2:04 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 90 of 144 (597678)
12-23-2010 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Nuggin
02-25-2010 11:12 AM


Re: Morality though....
Maybe Neaderthals include the daughters of man who the sons of god found fair ....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Nuggin, posted 02-25-2010 11:12 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Nuggin, posted 12-23-2010 10:36 AM Peter 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