The Return of the Neanderthals!

[NOTW]

Now, I came across this article and was fascinated, at first, that scientist might be able to resurrect (or revive, for the sake of the term) the woolly mammoth, by means of little changes in DNA sequence of elephant embryos and over a period of time would become a bit more similar to that of the target DNA.

But the main focus of the article was that if we can induce change in DNA sequence of embryonic elephants over a period of time, then, technically, we can do the same with Neanderthals DNA.
To be more technical, the DNA from embryonic chimpanzee would be changed, not human embryos.

http://www.slate.com/id/2205310/?GT1=38001

But here is a question:
Given that it is a definite possibility or that we can actually revive the Neanderthals, should we resurrect the Neanderthal?
And if the Neanderthal was resurrected, will they [the Neanderthals] be treated as humans or primates?

Just hypothetical questions to ponder the future of humanity!

 

[ephesus32]

If we could, it would be exciting to actually see the actual physical characteristics of the Neanderthal to compare whether they look more like a human or a monkey.

 

[Naraoia]

Humans are monkeys and primates, for Hennig's sake

I sure wouldn't want to be the one Neanderthal alive among all these Homo sapiens. I mean, what would we do with them, apart from showing them on TV and experimenting with them like we do with chimps?

I wonder if it would be possible for them to integrate into society, assuming they are raised by normal H. sapiens families. From what little I know they were very similar to us, but were they similar enough? Or just different enough never to be at home among us? Or different enough to be happy anyway?

Intriguing questions. Unfortunately the only way to know the answers is to do the experiment.

 

[TheReasoner]

Humans are monkeys and primates, for Hennig's sake

I sure wouldn't want to be the one Neanderthal alive among all these Homo sapiens. I mean, what would we do with them, apart from showing them on TV and experimenting with them like we do with chimps?

I wonder if it would be possible for them to integrate into society, assuming they are raised by normal H. sapiens families. From what little I know they were very similar to us, but were they similar enough? Or just different enough never to be at home among us? Or different enough to be happy anyway?

Intriguing questions. Unfortunately the only way to know the answers is to do the experiment.

We're apes. Not monkeys. Big difference.

As for reviving such species. Sure. Why not? Just don't let them reproduce, and don't ever let them out into the wild. It would likely upset the environment it was released into no end.

 

[Naraoia]

We're apes. Not monkeys. Big difference.

Oh. I didn't know that "monkeys" was used in that paraphyletic sense.

Simians, then

 

[Washington]

But here is a question:
Given that it is a definite possibility or that we can actually revive the Neanderthals, should we resurrect the Neanderthal?
And if the Neanderthal was resurrected, will they [the Neanderthals] be treated as humans or primates?

As I see it, bringing a Neanderthal into the world is little different than deliberately retarding a child just because we want to see how it functions.

 

[TheReasoner]

As I see it, bringing a Neanderthal into the world is little different than deliberately retarding a child just because we want to see how it functions.

Is it just as cruel to raise a chimpanzee in a human home then?

 

[Washington]

Is it just as cruel to raise a chimpanzee in a human home then?

No, because unlike chimps, which belong to Pan troglodytes, Neanderthals are considered to be either a Homo species (Homo neanderthalensis) or a Homo sapien subspecies (H. s. neanderthalensis). Besides, chimps aren't critters deliberately created to function with a less than a normal human IQ (I am assuming this is true of Neanderthals), and an appearance that would hamper their assimilated into our society.

 

[TheReasoner]

No, because unlike chimps, which belong to Pan troglodytes, Neanderthals are considered to be either a Homo species (Homo neanderthalensis) or a Homo sapien subspecies (H. s. neanderthalensis). Besides, chimps aren't critters deliberately created to function with a less than a normal human IQ (I am assuming this is true of Neanderthals), and an appearance that would hamper their assimilated into our society.

Assuming they are of sufficient intellect to actually assimilate at all.

I agree that the ethics are questionable. But I still think it needs debating. Can we gain anything useful from it? Surely, creating mammoths, saber tooth tigers and dinosaurs is all OK, so long as we do not allow them to reproduce. We could learn much from many of these ancient species, I am sure. As for neanderthals... If they are not of an intellect or appearance which enables for easy integration, is that a huge problem? We have mentally handicapped people already, who are capable of good lives, even though they are not assimilated at all. With such low intellectual capacity they tend to be satisfied with less than we have in many areas. If we say we do not wish to grant life to a neanderthal clone, can we justify allowing couples with a high risk of creating a handicapped child to reproduce at all?

 

[Ryal Kane]

We're apes. Not monkeys. Big difference.

As for reviving such species. Sure. Why not? Just don't let them reproduce, and don't ever let them out into the wild. It would likely upset the environment it was released into no end.

Let's say they were close to average human intelligence. Do you think you'd be happy to learn you could never reproduce or be free because you were an experiment?

 

[TheReasoner]

Let's say they were close to average human intelligence. Do you think you'd be happy to learn you could never reproduce or be free because you were an experiment?

Depends. If you don't know an alternative... I don't think I'd be happy, no. Not happy at all.

Regardless, you surely do agree that we could not allow him or her to reproduce in this world. If anything would be cruel, that would be it. IF such a being is made, it must not be allowed to reproduce. That must be final. And to be honest, I cannot see why so many get so worked up about reproduction. We need to start question whether it can remain a right, or if it should become a privilege as is. Seeing how the world is exceptionally overpopulated when our consumption is taken into account. People are not willing to do what needs to be done to maintain the population (reduce consumption, alter lifestyles, collectively work exceptionally hard for a technological boom). Nor are people willing to do what is necessary to maintain the consumption (drastic population reduction, controlled and monitored reproduction, etc). We'll likely have to do something about our population anyway. I do not think there's a chance we can get our technology up fast enough to not need a reduction.
So the question of reproduction is not just one which can be asked about this possible event, but one we need to address for normal human beings as well. Will we change our lifestyles, cull the population, or will the world cull it for us?

 

[NOTW]

Depends. If you don't know an alternative... I don't think I'd be happy, no. Not happy at all.

Regardless, you surely do agree that we could not allow him or her to reproduce in this world. If anything would be cruel, that would be it. IF such a being is made, it must not be allowed to reproduce. That must be final. And to be honest, I cannot see why so many get so worked up about reproduction. We need to start question whether it can remain a right, or if it should become a privilege as is. Seeing how the world is exceptionally overpopulated when our consumption is taken into account. People are not willing to do what needs to be done to maintain the population (reduce consumption, alter lifestyles, collectively work exceptionally hard for a technological boom). Nor are people willing to do what is necessary to maintain the consumption (drastic population reduction, controlled and monitored reproduction, etc). We'll likely have to do something about our population anyway. I do not think there's a chance we can get our technology up fast enough to not need a reduction.
So the question of reproduction is not just one which can be asked about this possible event, but one we need to address for normal human beings as well. Will we change our lifestyles, cull the population, or will the world cull it for us?

Well, we already have the technology to maintain the human population.
The debate is just a matter of cost-efficiency.

And since when was reproduction an argument about privilige or right?
You're either coercing rules on people, like China, or let them do whatever they want. Reproduction is a choice.

But the question that should be asked is this:
Do we, H. Sapien, get to choose the fate of entire species, wherever they might fall in the classification heirarchy?

 

[Naraoia]

Regardless, you surely do agree that we could not allow him or her to reproduce in this world. If anything would be cruel, that would be it. IF such a being is made, it must not be allowed to reproduce. That must be final.

I don't follow your reasoning there.

Of course there are questions of hybridisation (or of inbreeding, depending on the number of Neanderthals around and their mate choices...), but I don't see how that would automatically make it "cruel" to let them reproduce. I mean, any more cruel than bringing them into the world in the first place.

 

[TheReasoner]

Well, we already have the technology to maintain the human population.
The debate is just a matter of cost-efficiency.

I believe we will not be willing to make the change necessary. If we continue to live as we do, we're overpopulated. If we change our lifestyle (drastically reduce meat consumption, skip cars and use public transportation instead, shift from planes to trains etc.) then yes. We could possibly sustain our population. But my point is, we cannot sustain both our lifestyles and our population. We need to choose. And while I may seem pessimistic I have practically no faith that humanity has what it takes to make the choice. Oh, I think some people would be willing to massacre billions of other people to keep their own consumption up. But I don't consider that a valid option. You could say we're not "men" enough to make the changes necessary. What technology is available needs infrastructure changes and significant shifts in all of society in order to do what is necessary. Changes and shifts we are not willing to pay for. So while bleak, I think we will keep on our damning road until mother earth lashes out and the black death which killed over half of Norway's population, killing our language and sending us into centuries under foreign rule will seem like a walk in the park.

And since when was reproduction an argument about privilige or right?
You're either coercing rules on people, like China, or let them do whatever they want. Reproduction is a choice.

Should it be? Can we allow it to be? Given the situation we are in, the economy might not take the changes necessary to avoid catastrophe, the people are not willing to change their lifestyles, and the poor who are up and coming are not willing to slip back into poverty under the heel of the west... Well, given all that we have one real option: DRASTIC reduction of the population. If you see another option, do tell. Oh sure we could invest heavily in an international effort to develop and spread new technologies and get the necessary infrastructure up and running for a technological and logistical basis for a strong and healthy civilization. But I sincerely doubt we're willing to actually pay the price for that.

But the question that should be asked is this:
Do we, H. Sapien, get to choose the fate of entire species, wherever they might fall in the classification heirarchy?

We do every day. We decide what species get to live, and what species don't get to live. We have done for thousands of years as the most efficient hunter ever made. What's new? We've killed off plenty of species. We do so all the time.

I don't follow your reasoning there.

Of course there are questions of hybridisation (or of inbreeding, depending on the number of Neanderthals around and their mate choices...), but I don't see how that would automatically make it "cruel" to let them reproduce. I mean, any more cruel than bringing them into the world in the first place.

If a (one) cloned neanderthal was able to reproduce with human beings, and mingle it's DNA with ours, wouldn't it quite likely mean the product would be devolution, possibly speciation? If we make several neanderthals, let them reproduce and let them out into the wilderness somewhere, we're likely to upset the ecosystem in that area significantly. It could even mean problems for local human beings. Who knows what the consequences would be?! Are we willing to take that risk?

 

[Tenka]

If we say we do not wish to grant life to a neanderthal clone, can we justify allowing couples with a high risk of creating a handicapped child to reproduce at all?

I think there is a major difference between a couple taking the risk of having a 'below average functioning' child and deliberately creating a person who has no hope of a normal existence although they have the sentience to understand what they don't have. As current thinking stands, neanderthals were not unintelligent by sapien standards.

 

[Naraoia]

If a (one) cloned neanderthal was able to reproduce with human beings, and mingle it's DNA with ours, wouldn't it quite likely mean the product would be devolution, possibly speciation? If we make several neanderthals, let them reproduce and let them out into the wilderness somewhere, we're likely to upset the ecosystem in that area significantly. It could even mean problems for local human beings. Who knows what the consequences would be?! Are we willing to take that risk?

For one thing, there is no such concept in biology as devolution (nevertheless, I think I know what you mean).

For another, speciation (in the Biological Species sense) has either already occurred between H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis or it hasn't. If we are the same species then mixing the two won't lead to speciation either, nor would it produce some kind of freak. It would just dilute the Neanderthal genes very quickly. If we aren't, that's a tougher problem, defective hybrids and all. (But at least we'd quickly realise hybridising was a bad idea...)

Why would you let Neanderthals out into the wilderness, unless they really aren't that "human" (in which case why would you let them out into the wilderness again?)? I think if they were similar enough to us they would be quite happy to live in the concrete wilderness just like we do.

 

[Assyrian]

First thing they'd do is hire a firm of lawyers to sue every time people misused the term 'Neanderthal'.

 

[Naraoia]

First thing they'd do is hire a firm of lawyers to sue every time people misused the term 'Neanderthal'.

Do you think they'd let the Germans use it for the valley?

 

[Assyrian]

Definitely. It all helps their case when they sue for their valley back.

 

[Bombila]

This is a recreation from skeletal information of a Neanderthal child. We know from DNA that some Neandertals had red hair.

Neandertals were not likely less intelligent than the average modern human. They were far more like us than different from us, and describing them as being 'like a retarded child' is not realistic.

Neandertals lived in family groups, cared for their aged and injured and sick, buried their dead with some from of ritual, made tools similar to those made by humans who lived in the same time period. They had weapons for hunting, tools for shaping wood, tools for scraping and preparing hides, and for making holes in hides to join pieces with root or sinew. It's likely, from findings of mineral crayons, that they decorated their bodies with paint.

I could almost be persuaded to consider the idea of a human-Neandertal cross - it is possible, though not proven, that this cross was made naturally in the past. But I would no more consider it ethical to cross a neandertal with a chimp than I would a modern human.

Neandertals were beyond a doubt, people, persons.

Most Neandertals would pass for somewhat tough looking short, stocky humans. Only a very few of the men would look really different, with the very prominent brow.