Right- but if we took an Ancient Egyptian newborn and raised it here, he/she would be indistinguishable from any other random North African in both appearance and ability. A Neanderthal would be a bit farther, but considering how similar in a lot of ways the great apes are to us, and the fact that Neanderthals only split from our lineage barely more than an instant in the geological past (less than 10% of the time difference between the great ape-human split), I think that it’s very likely that their cognitive differences would be well within the very wide variations of normal human behavior and experience. Another way to say it is a Neanderthal might be weird, but I really doubt he’d be the weirdest guy I know.
What infant conditions are they susceptible to? Can/should they be taught language in the same way as a human infant? How will other children react to them and how will they react to other children? What should you feed them and how much? How fast will the baby mature?
http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/neanderthals-aging-maturity-development.htm
The last time Neanderthals walked the Earth we hadn’t even figured out how to farm. The knowledge gaps about them are vast - I mentioned just a handful earlier in response to Lobohan. Putting them in with surrogate parents would be neglectful - there are simply too many unknowns. A specialised environment dedicated to their study and care would be in a far better position to care for them (and even then, mistakes and missteps will happen) than a pair random humans who raise them as a species they aren’t.
Alright then, so it’d just be a question of maximizing benefits and minimizing costs, including ethical ones. I think humanity’s up to the task.
I think Lobohan is right about this particular point, though the facility required may be quite a bit larger than he was thinking.
Nobody knows, at the commencement of the project, what the full, final range of New Neanderthal capabilities and desires will be. Having ‘brought’ them into our time, surely it would be our ethical responsibility to provide for any conceivable result. Whatever their specific intelligence and personalities turn out to be, it would be wrong to keep them as captive specimens. It would be incumbent upon us to position them for lives that they will understand as free.
We cannot assume that they will be able to live independent lives in the modern world–though they must be raised to allow for the possibility, which means with modern-human parents, not keepers or attendants.
But parents, and potential access to modern learning, are not enough. They must know each other, too, and have access to a piece of the world akin to what their forebears knew. Ultimately they must learn or decide for themselves, at whatever level they are able, what it means to be the first Neanderthals in two hundred centuries.
To be effective, this would mean a complete package of protected territory, flora and fauna suitable to support their ancient mode of existence, and the requisite knowledge sets. So at least some of the first generation’s modern-human parents would have to be engaged in teaching Pleistocene-like survival skills.
And humanity will do the usual-whatever it damn well pleases, then cook the books afterwards.
I don’t know why you think a small group of sentient Neanderthals would be automatically miserable in a specialised environment. Let loose in society at large, I’d agree. The degree to which they would fit in to society at large would have to be determined, but even if we discovered that they couldn’t handle it there’s no reason we couldn’t still care for them in an isolated environment.
I agree it’s likely that they have the mental capacity to be indistinguishable in ability given a specialised education (if anything, I think it’s likely that they potentially exceed us) but I wouldn’t bet the well-being of an entire species on it off the bat, not until we know much more. ETA - I’m not arguing that they shouldn’t have individual humans who act as parents, such a thing would probably be one of the few ‘safe bets’, the Neanderthal family unit not being entirely different from archaic humans.
You’re being overly pedantic on that issue. I said it is a reproductive technology-- it just hasn’t been used on humans yet. So what? There is nothing other then the “ick factor” that should prevent us from doing so. We would, of course, do extensive cloning tests on our closets relatives to ensure it was safe first.
I don’t know. THat’s what I find a bit disconcerting. They are very much like us, and perhaps could pick up some diseases that could jump to us that wouldn’t ordinarily do so.
If those turn out to be solid that’s great. But the evidence isn’t overwhelming, and even if true, they are likely much less symbolic than we are. That said, I hope it’s true.
Sure, but I was suggesting that their mental faculties may not allow the training to take.
I’m concerned about what they are physiologically capable of doing to interface with our society. Our world is based on how our brains work. Someone that has different functions may never be able to deal very well.
If you or I went to an alien world where you had to mentally solve complex equations in real time to operate a vending machine we’d do poorly.
Not necessarily. I don’t think torturing one human for science is acceptable either.
Ah, then we agree on this point. As I said to iiandyiiii I think it likely that they would grasp modern concepts simply based on the comparative statuses/capabilities of their species and our own in archaic times, but for the well-being of their species we’d need to tread carefully - hence a specialised education to determine capabilities. If it turns out that they can’t we’d need to adjust our role as carers for them accordingly.
Nor do I. My ethics are deontogical, based on duty and the rights of others.
I’ll rephrase though: I think America is up to the task, and would do a fine job with a Neanderthal Project.
I hereby declare for future generations, if you want to clone me, go for it. Round 2 might be fun!
(Yeah, I know it wouldn’t be what I call “me”.)
Seriously, I think the ethical answer is “no”, and I bet current laws could cover it. It depends on what we consider “human”. According to a larg contingent of anthropologists, they’re even the same species we are. (Of course, that theory is testable, but not without breaking the law if you find out … oh never mind.)
Practically speaking, this is either impossible or too arbitrary. First, let me say I agree with your intent; I’m just quibbling on a minor point: the assumption that there is a “natural state” for the species, and that we could recreate it to some degree of reasonable accuracy.
If accuracy isn’t important, then why is it important to recreate a pleistocene scenario?
Neanderthals used the same Mousterian toolset that their coeval modern humans of North Africa used. A “great leap forward” happened after the extinction of Neanderthals, leading to a much more diverse and specifialized toolkit. The cause for that is debatable, but could be due to a cultural revolution (e.g., language development) rather than a biological one.
It’s not at all clear whether they would be dumber, the same, or smarter than we are.
The “Great Leap Forward” happened long before Neanderthals went extinct.
Neanderthal tool kits were pretty much the same as Sapiens’ up until about 70k years ago, but that date keeps getting pushed back all the time. After the arrival of modern humans in Europe, Neanderthals started using some of those advanced tools. It’s not clear if they discovered them independently, were taught to do so, or were imitating their new neighbors.
But if we were raised in the same environment, we might do fine. A dog or cat raised in a Manhattan skyscraper will see that as the normal environment- certainly a Neanderthal would too. There are numerous examples of apes raised in human environments and functioning fine and living happily (and a few unfortunate tragedies), and Neanderthals are much, much closer to modern humans then the great apes. If a gorilla raised at a university can take a few quarters to a Coke machine, get a can, and open it and drink it, and an Orangutan can operate an iPad to play games, then I imagine a Neanderthal raised among us can work a TV remote, open the refrigerator and get an apple, operate a toilet, etc.
Apparently, the news story was not correct.
along with compatible mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondria depend on products of nuclear DNA, if those products are incompatible with the mitochondrial DNA, the mitochondria don’t work (or don’t work well). Just a nit. For human cloning, you’d normally use the DNA donor’s cells, which would avoid this problem. If that wasn’t possible, you’d try different cell donors until it worked. Neanderthal DNA might not be compatible with any variation of modern human mitochondria. Of course, that portion of human nuclear DNA could probably be patched in if necessary.
Bingo. And we wouldn’t really know how to treat them, having no examples.
Or their handlers!
I think there are plenty of practical and ethical considerations other than a mere “ick factor”. For example, is it OK to clone a large number oof the same individual, since that individual had such great success the first time (or the first dozen times)? Is it OK for me to make a “mini me” because I think I’m pretty cool? There is a big difference between in-vitro fertilization and cloning. That said, I’m sure there are cases where I wouldn’t object, but it’s still illegal.
Thanks for the correction. I’ll have to check my sources. But am I right that it’s not clear whether this leap was related to biology?
Why wouldn’t it be?
Why not?
Like what?
I wouldn’t worry about that. We’ve cloned animals with mtDNA from a different Genus.
Right, we’re not sure what caused it. But even more, we’re not sure if “it” is an artifact of the fossil record rather than an indication of what the reality was. Like I said, the date of its beginning keeps getting pushed back all the time.
I think some of you are too hung up on the potential differences between Neanderthals and us. The definition of “species” is somewhat arbitrary, and one can make a very good argument that we are the same species. Paleo-anthropologists are notorious “splitters”. Call them a sub-speices of H. sapiens if you want. It’s looking more and more like that nowadays anyway.
If you’d be OK with cloning a 40k year old Cro Magnon person, I can’t see any reason that cloning a Neanderthal would be significantly different. As I noted above, the more ethical problem arises with more primitive human ancestors, like H. erectus or H. habilis, which probably would have problems living in a modern society, but would we feel comfortable putting them in a zoo?