Would it be immoral to resurrect a Neanderthal from recovered DNA?

[astro]

If technology advances tot he point we can do this with recovered DNA, should we? While the anthropological information to be gained by studying a live Neanderthal would be huge one downside (among many) would be that the "person" created would have no physically similar associates, and would probably (I'm guessing) be fairly isolated by their looks.

[ITR champion]

On the plus side, GEICO's advertising department would be happy to hire him.

[The Second Stone]

For the reasons you have offered, I would consider it unethical. That's not quite the same as immoral, which usually has a belief system attached, and my belief system doesn't consider cloning.

[DanBlather]

If technology advances tot he point we can do this with recovered DNA, should we? While the anthropological information to be gained by studying a live Neanderthal would be huge one downside (among many) would be that the "person" created would have no physically similar associates, and would probably (I'm guessing) be fairly isolated by their looks.This is a great question and would make a better movie than the "thawing frozen Neanderthal" story line.

I think the scientific information gained may be worth the dubious ethics, but it would be sad to see one lone Neanderthal. Maybe if they could create a hot Neanderthal babe as well.

It'd be really strange if it turns out Neanderthals were smarter and more compassionate than homo sapiens and were killed by the more "savage" species. Imagine Einstein/Gandhi with a brow ridge.

[Sr Siete]

Yes. Yes it would. Screw the Neardenthals, clone ME. I'm awesome. And I could use the help.

[DSeid]

I am not sure what I think yet, but to play the under represented side of the argument:

Many if not most experts believe that "we" (Homo sapiens) played a significant role, both directly and indirectly through competition, in driving the Neandertals to extinction. Given that, couldn't one make the argument that our species has an ethical obligation to bring back our distant cousins if we could? This would require not just cloning one individual but cloning a small band of individuals.

Yes, I'd agree that the premise would make a good basis for a novel. What would be their status relative to the rest of society? How would an newly established group interface with the rest of the world? How would their intelligence differ from ours (not per say smarter or dumber but of a different sort)?

[WF Tomba]

I think it would depend on what kind of life they need to be content, and whether that could be provided. What if it turns out that they are really only comfortable with a hunter-gatherer lifestyle? There are precious few places on Earth where you can still live that way.

[Bryan Ekers]

Bad idea. Didn't you guys watch Sliders?


Oh wait, nobody did.

[John Mace]

There are a number of other problems to consider. Is this guy going to be free to go about his business once he's an adult? Is he a citizen of your country? Can he be tired in court? What if he or she mated with one of us and produced offspring-- what are their status?

But I would think a Neanderthal would be at least as able to navigate our society as some of the more mentally challenged people today, and maybe just as well as any other person. This issue becomes trickier as you dig back further in time to resurrect individuals who could not function in society.

[WF Tomba]

I believe the question of Neanderthals' language abilities is still unsettled, is it not? That would probably be the biggest factor determining how well they could adapt.

[astro]

There are a number of other problems to consider. Is this guy going to be free to go about his business once he's an adult? Is he a citizen of your country? Can he be tired in court? What if he or she mated with one of us and produced offspring-- what are their status?

But I would think a Neanderthal would be at least as able to navigate our society as some of the more mentally challenged people today, and maybe just as well as any other person. This issue becomes trickier as you dig back further in time to resurrect individuals who could not function in society.

Not to ask an entirely silly question but how were Neanderthals language abilities compared to ours? Even if there were reasonably intelligent would they have the finely motor control of the mouth/tongue and breath control physical apparatus necessary to use spoken language as easily as we do. Does Neatherthal skeletal physiology tell us anything about this?

[DSeid]

Some reasoned speculations for your answer (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Neanderthals-were-too-smart-to-survive-15264.shtml) astroNeanderthals were the first humans who buried their dead and they developed better stone tools. It was recently discovered that they also created art figures. However, during the same period of time Homo Sapiens developed much further and faster. Relative to Homo Sapiens' advances in stone tool making Neanderthals look like stagnating. In other words, although Neanderthals were definitely a great advance compared to Homo Erectus, their inventiveness was no match for the Homo Sapiens. But how do we resolve this with the fact that the Neanderthals were probably more intelligent than us?

We can restate the question more precisely: "How do we resolve this with the fact that the Neanderthal individual was probably more intelligent than a modern human individual?" The cranial capacity tells us something about the individuals' mental abilities, but it tells us almost nothing about the social aspects of life.
Studying the inventiveness of Homo Sapiens scientists have found that literally all the major innovations that have changed the way we live, from the use of fire, to agriculture, to writing etc., have developed only in a few places. For example agriculture appeared independently only in around seven places on the entire planet. All the rest of human populations that engaged in farming did it because they had learned it from somebody. Therefore, the most important aspect of inventiveness is not the ability to invent, but the ability to transmit and to preserve innovations.

This gives us an important clue to why Neanderthals failed in the competition with Homo Sapiens. One of the most important means by which innovations are preserved and transmitted is language. Neanderthals had language themselves. This was proven in 1983 when a Neanderthal hyoid bone was found at the Kebara Cave in Israel. The hyoid is a small bone that holds the root of the tongue in place, a requirement to human speech and, therefore, its presence seems to imply some ability to speak. Recent studies found that due to the physical characteristics of Neanderthals' hyoid and the fact that their larynx was stouter than that of modern man, the average note emitted by Neanderthals were high pitched and sharper than that of modern man. This contradicts the stereotype of Neanderthals having ape-like grunts. However, the base of the Neanderthal tongue was positioned higher in the throat, crowding the mouth somewhat. As a result, Neanderthal speech would most likely have been slow-paced and nasalized.

The overall conclusion would be that, although Neanderthals did have the ability to speak, they were capable of articulating only a smaller number of phonemes. Jared Diamond described this limitation using the following example: imagine how many words you could say if the only sounds you were able to make were a, u, c, p. Imagine trying to say "Trinity College is a fine place to work." All you could say were something like "Capupa Cappap up a cap capupap."
...

Thus, it seems that the ultimate reason behind Neanderthals extinction was not due to their mental capacities but to the shape of their larynx. So there is indeed some evidence to support speculations that vocal language was very limited in Neanderthals because of anatomic limitations and that sign language was not conducive enough to transmit cultural innovations as effectively. It may be that Neanderthals were better at analysis and memorizing but poorer at creating new ideas.

[Zygomide]

How well could a neanderthal adapt into society? I imagine that the reason they were so uncivilized was because they had no real civilization for them to adopt. If they were presented with our culture, they might just pick it up like the standard babies.
Edit: I'm not saying that I think this is the case, just something I thought about.

[WF Tomba]

Interesting, DSeid. Personally, I'm not sure it can be assumed that they were actually smarter than us, as their brains were only a little bit bigger--nothing like the difference in brain size between a Homo erectus and a modern human.

[Belowjob2.0]

Maybe they spoke tonal languages, which would give them a bigger vocab even with the limitations imposed by physiology.

A bigger brain would also be useful in processing sound and pitch, just like it is in cetaceans.

[Belowjob2.0]

An extension to the OP:

What if we created an entire Neanderthal community?

What if this community was situated on an isolated island, and quarantined from the rest of the world, the way the Andaman Islanders are?

[WF Tomba]

An extension to the OP:

What if we created an entire Neanderthal community?

What if this community was situated on an isolated island, and quarantined from the rest of the world, the way the Andaman Islanders are?
I would not have a problem with that, as long as the island's ecosystem would support them. But wouldn't we still feel a strong obligation to step in and protect them from disasters that might occur, such as famines or epidemics? And what if they had a civil war--would we have a duty to try to settle it?

[Belowjob2.0]

I would not have a problem with that, as long as the island's ecosystem would support them. But wouldn't we still feel a strong obligation to step in and protect them from disasters that might occur, such as famines or epidemics? And what if they had a civil war--would we have a duty to try to settle it?

We'd be obligated, sure. I believe the Indian govt. intervenes w/ the Andaman Islanders for epidemics and natural disasters.

If an alien, sentient civilization recreated an isolated small city with a population of 200 k or so, and people could live the way people normally live (however you choose to define that) it would probably be better than not existing at all.

Being brought into existence all alone would be awful, I think.

[Alan Smithee]

If we tried to create a population, what culture would we give them? It's not like people instinctively know how to speak, hunt, gather food, etc. These skills have to come from someone. Who teaches the first generation of Neanderthals, and what are they taught? I'm not sure it would even be possible to create a healthy population of Neanderthals without a LOT of trial and error, since we wouldn't know what type of language they could use, what sort of social structure is natural to them, or even what nutritional needs might be different from our own. Some of those problems would resolve themselves over several generations, but not without lots of individuals suffering, and not without a lot of early intervention just to keep them alive. (Someone has to feed the first infant.) Contact with Homo sapiens would inevitably affect whatever culture they eventually develop for themselves, in unpredictable ways.

[meara]

Interesting to consider how their immune systems would react to modern pathogens. We don't have a lot of examples out there of creatures who have missed eons of co-evolution. Would modern day bugs do them in? Would their cellular structures be so old that the latest microbes wouldn't recognize them? I'd guess the former, but who knows.

[astro]

Would their cellular structures be so old that the latest microbes wouldn't recognize them? I'd guess the former, but who knows.

I'm not sure the age of a "cellular structure" determines the level of primate immunity.

[John Mace]

Not to ask an entirely silly question but how were Neanderthals language abilities compared to ours? Even if there were reasonably intelligent would they have the finely motor control of the mouth/tongue and breath control physical apparatus necessary to use spoken language as easily as we do. Does Neatherthal skeletal physiology tell us anything about this?

There isn't a good consensus in the scientific community on that issue. There are even lots of anthropologists who believe that we didn't acquire "fully articulate language" until about 70k years ago, even though our species is generally thought to have appeared almost 200k years ago.

I would hope that genetic information we obtain in the next decade or so will be what gets us closer to an answer to those questions.

[John DiFool]

The film Iceman (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087452/) may be relevant to many of the issues discussed here.

[Skald the Rhymer]

This is a great question and would make a better movie than the "thawing frozen Neanderthal" story line.

I think the scientific information gained may be worth the dubious ethics, but it would be sad to see one lone Neanderthal. Maybe if they could create a hot Neanderthal babe as well.


Apart from the inherent sexism of your equating Neanderthal-without-qualifier with "male Neanderthal," how are we supposed to know what a male Neanderthal is going to consider attractive? And what if the female doesn't think the male is attractive?

[Terrifel]

"Yes, our group is applying for a grant to recreate an alternative subspecies of humanity, who were very likely incapable of reproducing contemporary speech, and who were almost certainly several times stronger than modern humans. We're interested in finding out whether they possessed reasoning ability and the potential for complex culture, or if they would simply tend to go berserk like terrified animals in a mad frenzy of raping and killing. Needless to say, we'll need funding broad enough to cover either contingency. Our collective professional opinion is that nothing could possibly go wrong."

[Bryan Ekers]

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm just a neanderthal."

[Hamlet]

I'll give you the answer Thursday Next.

[Zygomide]

Apart from the inherent sexism of your equating Neanderthal-without-qualifier with "male Neanderthal," how are we supposed to know what a male Neanderthal is going to consider attractive? And what if the female doesn't think the male is attractive?

I don't think it was as much sexism as just the default significant other. Merely a habit of what is usually considered the ideal other gender. So, not sexism, just easier and more natural to say than "hot neanderthal of the preferred gender of the other neanderthal."

[astro]

Young Neanderthal girl (http://www.rdos.net/neanderthal.jpg)

[DanBlather]

Apart from the inherent sexism of your equating Neanderthal-without-qualifier with "male Neanderthal," how are we supposed to know what a male Neanderthal is going to consider attractive? And what if the female doesn't think the male is attractive?Wait, the Neanderthal is a doctor and the mother
of the kid in the car wreck.

[Bryan Ekers]

Wait, the Neanderthal is a doctor and the mother of the kid in the car wreck.

Are Neanderthals familiar with acid glue?

[Nom_de_Plume]

Bad idea. Didn't you guys watch Sliders?


Oh wait, nobody did.


I liked Sliders. Started as a good show, but jumped the shark pretty early.

Also, as Hamlet pointed out, author Jasper Fforde covered this ethical dilemma in his Thursday Next series. As I recall, the cloned Neanderthals seemed to be out of place in the modern world, and the cloned Mammoths also caused some destruction in Great Britain during the migratory season.

[clairobscur]

The overall conclusion would be that, although Neanderthals did have the ability to speak, they were capable of articulating only a smaller number of phonemes. Jared Diamond described this limitation using the following example: imagine how many words you could say if the only sounds you were able to make were a, u, c, p. Imagine trying to say "Trinity College is a fine place to work." All you could say were something like "Capupa Cappap up a cap capupap."
...


I've a hard time buying this part of your cite. Neanderthals having a more limited speech ability because their brain was different? Maybe. But because they could only articulate a limited number of phonemes? No way. They would find a way around in quick order. A previous poster mentioned tones, but they could as well have used for instance whistles or gestures. Not only they could have, but they would have, if they were similar to us. Deaf people can easily learn a complex language like ASL that doesn't use any sound at all. And not only can they learn it, but even if it's not taught to them, they will make up their own sign language if a number of them live together.

A limited ability to articulate a variety of sounds might be an evidence of a lack of a complex language, but it can't possibly be its cause.

[Mijin]

Apart from the inherent sexism of your equating Neanderthal-without-qualifier with "male Neanderthal," how are we supposed to know what a male Neanderthal is going to consider attractive? And what if the female doesn't think the male is attractive?

I can't believe you're being so homophobic as to assume that the Neanderthal-without-qualifier is automatically heterosexual, and that DanBlather wasn't thinking of a lesbian couple. :D

[Anne Neville]

Nitpick: it wouldn't be resurrecting a Neanderthal, it would be creating a new Neanderthal with genes identical to a Neanderthal that once lived. Those aren't the same thing.

You might not get as much anthropological data as you'd like. Problem is, things like culture and language are learned, and there would be nobody to teach those things to a cloned Neanderthal. You would learn something about what Neanderthals were capable of in terms of language and culture, but not what they actually did. Expecting a cloned Neanderthal to reproduce a Neanderthal language and culture (presumably there were several) exactly like one that existed in the past would be like cloning a person from the body of someone who lived during the Roman Empire and expecting them to speak Latin and practice Roman culture.

[The Scrivener]

As far as communication is concerned, how well could a Neanderthal text-message or use a Blackberry?

I bet that with some very sophisticated electronics and software, the electronic speech thingies that survivors of laryngeal cancer patients use could be modified to enable a Neanderthal to enunciate a wider range of sounds.

[Fish]

There would be something learned, Anne, by the Neanderthal's living physiology: what could she eat, how fast could she run, how good is her hearing, how long is her natural lifespan, etc. Although it would be difficult to draw broad conclusions from a single individual, it would certainly be a stronger data point than we have today.

Of course, then we put two Neanderthals in a gladiatorial cage match to see how well they battle to the death. Somebody cue the "Star Trek" fight music.

[DSeid]

I've a hard time buying this part of your cite. Neanderthals having a more limited speech ability because their brain was different? Maybe. But because they could only articulate a limited number of phonemes? No way. They would find a way around in quick order. A previous poster mentioned tones, but they could as well have used for instance whistles or gestures...Well, like I said it was a just a source for "reasoned speculations" ... Actually I thought Belowjob2.0's point was very good the moment I read it. It is also true that the gene most thought to be associated with language capacity in humans, FOXP2 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071018-neandertal-gene.html), is present in Neanderthals. And there is great reason to believe that gestural language (http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/1999/2/the-gestural-origins-of-language/1) preceded spoken language in the hominid line. But it does suggest which extant language environments would be most apt to raise a Neanderthal* in. Probably exposed simultaneously to both a tonal language and to some version of sign. As to diet, we know they were big meat eaters - and required many calories. And we know they were more cold than warm weather adapted.

The question of why they lost out to the upstart Homo Sapiens is still an interesting one. Was their intelligence just a less flexible/creative sort (certainly we all have experienced that the creative types often have different sorts of intelligence than those highly skilled in detailed analysis) or was evolution acting at the level of the group - Homo Sapiens was first to create a larger cultural organization, a meta-organism of sorts, that allowed individuals with the same or lesser cognitive capacity to benefit more from a wide variety of individual inputs - and Neandertals didn't organize in response fast enough?

*Or is it Neandertal? I read it both ways with Science usually dropping the h. Such as in this article. (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;306/5693/40?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=neandertal&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT)

[John Mace]

Taxonomy is conservative, and the spelling shouldn't change just because the modern language changed. It's Homo neanderthalensis, so I favor Neanderthal. Also, "Neanderthal" has become an English word, even if it's root is in German. English doesn't have regular spelling reforms. But that's just MHO.

[Anne Neville]

There would be something learned, Anne, by the Neanderthal's living physiology: what could she eat, how fast could she run, how good is her hearing, how long is her natural lifespan, etc. Although it would be difficult to draw broad conclusions from a single individual, it would certainly be a stronger data point than we have today.

Sure, you'll get some of that. But you shouldn't expect to get information about Neanderthal language and culture, since those things were learned.

You won't even reliably get information on what sounds Neanderthals couldn't make after the new Neanderthal grows up, since they might go through something similar to what modern humans do. We're born able to make and distinguish sounds that don't occur in our native language, but we lose that ability sometime in childhood. The cloned Neanderthal is going to be raised by someone who speaks some language, and might pick up at least some of that language, so the same thing might happen to her.

[Uosdwis R. Dewoh]

Of course, then we put two Neanderthals in a gladiatorial cage match to see how well they battle to the death. Somebody cue the "Star Trek" fight music.

I bet 2000 Quatloos on the ancient forefather.

As long as we treated the Neanderthal with basic human decency, Id be all for it.

[Don't Call Me Shirley]

I bet one of the biggest problems would be conflicts among people with varying opinions on whether Jesus died for that Neanderthal's sins, and whether the Neanderthals could accept Jesus Christ into their hearts as their personal savior.

[John Mace]

What if it turned out that the Neanderthal was Jesus? ;)

[Fish]

You won't even reliably get information on what sounds Neanderthals couldn't make after the new Neanderthal grows up, since they might go through something similar to what modern humans do. We're born able to make and distinguish sounds that don't occur in our native language...
Even knowing that a Neanderthal is capable of making modern human sounds would be useful. It might tell us how Neanderthals interacted with other hominid varieties — if Jondalar and Ayla could teach Durc the language, so to speak. It's true that nothing will tell us what their ancient language was actually like, but then again, nothing short of time travel ever did. Presuming we willen have on-invented it and willen have pre-used it.
I bet 2000 Quatloos on the ancient forefather.
Dibs on the babe in the silver outfit.

[Elendil's Heir]

Perhaps this would be of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ugly_Little_Boy

I'm afraid we'd screw up a solitary Neanderthal's life, or the lives of a group of them, if we created them using recovered DNA. We can't even adequately care for the many abused and neglected children in our world. I'm no Luddite, but I'd say better not to try the Neanderthal experiment at all.

[John Mace]

...if Jondalar and Ayla could teach Durc the language, so to speak...

Durc was only 1/2 Neanderthal, for the record.

[Cluricaun]

Young Neanderthal girl (http://www.rdos.net/neanderthal.jpg)

Apparently another young Neanderthal girl (http://cdn.maximonline.com/uploadedCmsFiles/Slides/37_ashley_olsen_2980.jpg).

[DSeid]

Back to the op, the ethics of bringing our distant cousins back into existence (if it was indeed technologically feasible) ... I think a few questions are suggested:

Is existence as a species preferable to nonexistence? Is withholding recreation once we have the power to do so an ethical act?

What is the intent of bringing them back? Are we trying to exploit them in some way, be it for entertainment, or for edification, or as a slave class, or to make up for the historic genocide our species likely committed against theirs?

What would be the real risks to modern human society, if any?

By necessity the scientists would be subjecting a sentient hominid to an experimental protocol without consent (the process of being created and placed into a modern environment, even one designed to be as ideal for the species as we can manage based on current knowledge). Who is entrusted with giving consent for the species and for the individuals to be and on what basis?

And of course what would be the status within society if integrated with modern humans or between societies if placed on that imagined isolated island?

[Elendil's Heir]

Apparently another young Neanderthal girl (http://cdn.maximonline.com/uploadedCmsFiles/Slides/37_ashley_olsen_2980.jpg).

I volunteer to care for her in an entirely moral way. :: cough ::

[Fish]

Durc was only 1/2 Neanderthal, for the record.
Exactly my point. I mention them all purposely.

Ayla was raised by Neanderthals — surely this was not an isolated and fictional incident. Humans find babies of all virtually all mammalian species cute, and we keep them and raise them. Could she have learned to speak Clan?

Could there be interbreeding? If so, could there be a half-Neanderthal capable of acting as an intermediary between the two hominid groups?

If such a thing were possible — or impossible — it would tell us a great deal about the potential for interaction between the two groups. Did they exchange ideas? Could they exchange ideas?

[Lobohan]

On the plus side, GEICO's advertising department would be happy to hire him.

The real issue with GEICO is their creation of Human-Reptile Chimeras.



On Topic: I think it might be better to wait 100 years and emulate the Neanderthal genome on a futuristic super computer. They can make as many faux Neanderthals as they want virtually and don't have to worry about the suffering. Once they find out the fiddly bits about drug interactions, nutritional requirements, language capability and mental capacity it'll be easier to decide whether to resurrect the race.

In fact you can run whole tribes of Neanderthals on the computer and allow them to create their own language and culture and history. Then you can program robots to care for the first physical Neanderthal babies and raise them in that culture. Once the second generation comes around, you can take a step back and let them become self sustaining.

[Belowjob2.0]

The real issue with GEICO is their creation of Human-Reptile Chimeras.



On Topic: I think it might be better to wait 100 years and emulate the Neanderthal genome on a futuristic super computer. They can make as many faux Neanderthals as they want virtually and don't have to worry about the suffering. Once they find out the fiddly bits about drug interactions, nutritional requirements, language capability and mental capacity it'll be easier to decide whether to resurrect the race.

In fact you can run whole tribes of Neanderthals on the computer and allow them to create their own language and culture and history. Then you can program robots to care for the first physical Neanderthal babies and raise them in that culture. Once the second generation comes around, you can take a step back and let them become self sustaining.

If it can be done, I expect someone will do it. After all, various totalitarian governments have done much worse throughout history.

[Cervaise]

Ayla was raised by Neanderthals — surely this was not an isolated and fictional incident. Humans find babies of all virtually all mammalian species cute, and we keep them and raise them. Could she have learned to speak Clan?Maybe it's just me, but I think determining the verisimilitude of a Jean Auel sex romp is rather a poor justification for going to the trouble of manufacturing a caveman from laboriously extracted bone juice. ;)

[Fish]

Dude. I've been over the justification, here: babes in silver outfits (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/STGameTrisk.jpg). Try to keep up. ;)

In any case, the mention of Ayla, Jondalar and Durc was just as an illustration that people would be familiar with.

And anyway, I figure only one of 'em would look good in that silver outfit.

[clairobscur]

The real issue with GEICO is their creation of Human-Reptile Chimeras.



On Topic: I think it might be better to wait 100 years and emulate the Neanderthal genome on a futuristic super computer. They can make as many faux Neanderthals as they want virtually and don't have to worry about the suffering. [.....]

In fact you can run whole tribes of Neanderthals on the computer and allow them to create their own language and culture and history.


Hmmm... If the "emulated" Neanderthals are realistic enough for us to draw conclusions about their culture or language, I fail to see how it would be different from an actual Neanderthal, hence how it couldn't cause any suffering.




Regarding the OP question... even though there might be arguments making such a thing immoral, and can't bring myself to thinking it is obviously so. And I'm fascinated enough by them to support such an experiment without thinking too much about the ethical aspect of it, providing we "resurrect" a bunch of them and not without regard for their well-being.

Also, I strongly suspect we're responsible for their demise (actually, looking at our behaviour, I'm 100% sure we are), and somehow feel we've some sort of blurry moral duty to give the specie a new start if we can.

Plus, we wouldn't be alone any more.

[John Mace]

Besides, we could establish a homeland for them somewhere. Maybe in the Middle East? That seems to work pretty well.

[dropzone]

Taxonomy is conservative, and the spelling shouldn't change just because the modern language changed.Dear God, it changed since I was in high school German! "Thal" was "valley," plain and simple. And, as I learned it, "TH" was more voiced, like "DT," than "T." And "CH" is a gutteral I practiced long and hard to master. It's NOT a simple "K."

I frickin' HATE the Germans! This is why I cannot speak German with my daughter. :mad:

Er, not that I was ever any good at it.

Oh, answering the OP, I'm all in favor of it and think much of the anti-Neanderthal propaganda would be proven false.

[John Mace]

Dear God, it changed since I was in high school German! "Thal" was "valley," plain and simple. And, as I learned it, "TH" was more voiced, like "DT," than "T."

Yeah, one argument for changing the spelling (in English) is to get people to stop pronouncing it like "TH" (in English). German thal (now tal) is a cognate of dale and Scandinavial dal (a common ending in last names), although I believe older spellings preserve the dahl version, at least in Norwegian.

[Lobohan]

Hmmm... If the "emulated" Neanderthals are realistic enough for us to draw conclusions about their culture or language, I fail to see how it would be different from an actual Neanderthal, hence how it couldn't cause any suffering.I don't think a sophisticated emulation would by necessity be conscious and self aware. It could act like it perfectly, but I don't think there would have to be someone home.

[elfkin477]

Perhaps this would be of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ugly_Little_Boy

I'm afraid we'd screw up a solitary Neanderthal's life, or the lives of a group of them, if we created them using recovered DNA. We can't even adequately care for the many abused and neglected children in our world. I'm no Luddite, but I'd say better not to try the Neanderthal experiment at all. Besides that book - which is pretty much the OP's question in novel - also read Raising Abel by W. Michael Gear for more thoughts about how ethical it would be to recreate/bring a Neanderthal into modern-day society.

It would be terribly selfish to do this, and would benefit us much more than the poor neanderthal in question.

[Telperien]

The real issue with GEICO is their creation of Human-Reptile Chimeras.



On Topic: I think it might be better to wait 100 years and emulate the Neanderthal genome on a futuristic super computer. They can make as many faux Neanderthals as they want virtually and don't have to worry about the suffering. Once they find out the fiddly bits about drug interactions, nutritional requirements, language capability and mental capacity it'll be easier to decide whether to resurrect the race.

In fact you can run whole tribes of Neanderthals on the computer and allow them to create their own language and culture and history. Then you can program robots to care for the first physical Neanderthal babies and raise them in that culture. Once the second generation comes around, you can take a step back and let them become self sustaining.

Woohoo! NeanderSims!

[clairobscur]

I don't think a sophisticated emulation would by necessity be conscious and self aware. It could act like it perfectly, but I don't think there would have to be someone home.


If it acts like it perfectly, wouldn't it be the same as passing the Turing test? How could we tell he's not self-aware?

[Bryan Ekers]

The real issue with GEICO is their creation of Human-Reptile Chimeras.

I thought it was the overbearing desire to prevent D-list celebrity careers from dying with dignity.

[even sven]

I think the only way it could be ethical is if we raised them in our culture.

People need culture to live. Humans born without cultures (like those locked in isolation) become fucked up forever. On a grand scale, there are things like the damage that our suppressing African culture in slaves did. Culture is what gives our life meaning and is an essential part of any sentient being's health. And a healthy culture takes a long time to form.

Since we can't emulate Neanderthal culture, the only thing we have left is our own.

[monavis]

Interesting, DSeid. Personally, I'm not sure it can be assumed that they were actually smarter than us, as their brains were only a little bit bigger--nothing like the difference in brain size between a Homo erectus and a modern human.

I just watched a show on National Geogaphic that showed the big difference between us and the Neanderthal was where their voice box was in relation to modern humans. The therory was that Homo sapiens was better able to communicate and were able to find food, exchange ideas etc. The voice box was situated in such a place that many sounds were impossible for them to make.

Monavis

[Laudenum]

And what if the female doesn't think the male is attractive?
Give him a big wad of money;)



On a serious note, I always find the subject of Neanderthals depressing, as apparently we may have eaten them.

Murder and rape, I can handle, but eating them? Seriously wtf?