Have you met many modern humans (and the Internet)? There would be fetish cites within hours of any announcement (maybe there are now!), and entire subcultures born. They would be getting offers by the truckload- even if just for the novelty factor at first. I think they would do fine.
I read about this idea, absolute ethical nightmare.
For mine, I’d say yes do it. Do one, for science sake, and see what happens.
Start with the premise that it’s a human baby, raise it that way and take it from there. If the early signs are it is more like a chimp, act accordingly. If it turns out super smart, act accordingly. If it comes out like a large, powerful Sheldon, Abort Abort.
I am amazed to find that the knee-jerk anti-Neandertaler prejudice takes such standard forms.
“They” are likely to be violent, too strong, stupid, better off segregated, and after our women. Yeah, I suppose the old joke books would just be re-written with a different N-word…
Yes, they would. The guy or gal would be an instant celebrity. If Snookie can get married, I have no worries for a Neanderthal.
To me those who are trying to claim that this falls under the same ethical rubric as assisted reproduction for the purposes of attempting to have as normal of a child as possible are so far off that debating the point is of no interest. But I am still wrestling with whether there is anything to argue for such a move if technologically feasible. This is not justified by the I want a baby option. That’s just silly.
Satisfying our scientific curiosity is not enough justification. Boy I wonder what it would be like to create a human with a prehensile tail and an elephant’s trunk? Let’s do it! You don’t know there would be any problems and we take of people with problems all the time if there were. The individual would be a star! Think of what (s) could do with both a prehensile tail and a trunk! What would they be like? Could the brain support their function? We’ve got to do it to find out. No ethical problems here!
But does my other proposed justification make sense to anyone? IF we believe that we, as a species, had committed genocide against the Neandertal species back in the day, do we have an ethical obligation to bring them, Abel to our Cain, back if we can? As part of reparations for our species’ past crimes?
I think the “scientific curiosity” motivation makes more sense then this one- if any moral crimes were committed, they were committed against the individual victims, not any hypothetical unborn people. Creating new Neanderthals does nothing to atone for any possible past crimes, IMO.
As far as the curiosity motivation, I think it might be enough. I don’t think the “tail and trunk” example fits here- we know that Neanderthals survived and thrived on their own at times in the past, so it’s not the same. As long as they get every opportunity for happiness that other humans get, I think curiosity could be enough.
You are misrepresenting poster’s positions here.
The claim that this is similar to assisted reproduction is aimed at the idea that cloning of humans, even modern humans, is wrong. That’s the first hurdle that has to be passed before you consider cloning a Neanderthal. Lots of people, in fact most Americans, disapprove of human cloning. Those of us who disagree are saying that we have not seen a rational argument against it, as there is nothing inherently different about cloning than in vitro-- assuming, of course, the technique is proven safe.
As for creating a human with a tail, well… how is a Neanderthal anything like a “human with a tail”? That’s just a scare tactic. No one is creating a monster-- just a type of human that has already existed, lived for hundreds of thousands of years, and interbred with our own ancestors.
As to it being a star, that is, of course, not the point of the argument. That is simply a counter-argument to the idea that he’d be lonely or couldn’t find a mate or any other nonsensical arguments that ignore reality. If anything, I’d be worried about the guy being too popular for his own good.
As for any ethical obligation we would have to bring them back because we may have destroyed their race, I’d so no. Unless you have some religious argument to make, every species that every existed has gone extinct or will go extinct, and it’s not like we can actually bring back any of the actual Neanderthals that were alive. We don’t owe the world a Neanderthal population for any reason. They’re gone. If we decide to bring them back, it’s our decision.
what makes you think it would human in the sense that we are human?
It’s not bone structure that makes us human and it’s not the size of the brain that makes us human. It’s the unique structure of the brain that makes us what we are. A Neandertal may turn out to be a high functioning autistic being.
Lemur, do you realize that you’ve couched this entirely in terms of the children’s needs? They wouldn’t be children forever. Any such project must begin with an ethical eye toward the needs and rights of the eventual adults. Given that we cannot assume that they will be able, or wish, to integrate–how else can we be assured of doing right by them, but by preparing for this alternative? The general environment and mode of life of the Old Neanderthals is what we know the New should be able to handle; anything much different is speculation.
Also, I have to say, the comparison with gorillas and such troubles me. We are not talking about apes from whose line we diverged several millions of years ago. Neanderthals were and would be human beings. The ethical questions are of a very different order. If a parallel must be drawn, a somewhat better one would be with long-isolated indigenous peoples.
High functioning autistics are human. We create many thousands of them a year, and we don’t seem to have any problem taking care of them in a humane way.
Is that the same position you take on other sorts of intergenerational reparation issues? Oh pick your political stripe – Palestinian Right of Return; returning assets to children of plundered Holocaust victims; returning bones to Native American tribes; artifacts to Greece …? Only the direct victim deserves reparations?
The tail and trunk is exactly on point. It is experiments with creating human lives for no other purpose than curiosity. What is a monster to one is a cool thing to another. I can’t tell how often I’ve wished for a prehensile tail!
In fact what we know is that Neandertals failed to survive and thrive in a world co-populated with significant numbers of homo sapiens sapiens. That’s the track record, not one of success. The world changed when our species reached a critical mass and they were unable to survive that change. The world has obviously change significantly farther since then and not in ways that make one suspect a Neandertal would do better.
The other extinct animal bit is a silly straw man. I am asking if we have an ethical obligation to undo the harm our species was, hypothetically, directly culpable for, eradicating a sibling human species, a sentient conscious entity likely not too alien to our our own sentience. This is not trilobites. Or even mammoths.
The point is, yes a Neandertal child and adult would be human beings. The reason I brought up Chimps and Gorillas is that while they might have different needs than a Hss child or adult, but their needs would fall within the range of primate behaviors. They might be more aggressive than modern humans, but adult male chimps are much more aggressive than humans, and we can handle aggressive chimps. Chimps have different needs and different social structures than humans, but we can meet those needs in a humane way without recreating exactly the African rainforest where chimps live.
So the argument that it might be that the only way a Neandertal could be happy is living the life of a paleolithic hunter-gatherer doesn’t make sense. There’s no way we can recreate the social structure and culture of the Neandertals because we have no idea what that was.
There seem to be three possible ways to raise them that always seem to exist in science fictional treatments of this. One, treat them exactly like a modern human and then act all surprised when the turn out differently. Two, treat them like a lab rat or zoo animal, and then act all surprised when they have human needs and human emotions. Three, drop them off naked in Montana so they can live their lives as they please and then act all surprised when they starve to death.
Except none of these make any sense. They aren’t slaves or animals, they are human beings. Except they can’t be treated exactly as if they were modern humans, because they won’t be. Except they’ll be similar enough to us that we could interact with them as equal beings as long as we use a little common sense and humility. The reason we have these science fictional scenarios where the scientists don’t seem have an ounce of common sense or empathy is because the point of the stories is to show that not having an ounce of common sense is bad, m’kay? You can’t treat a human being like a slave, just because he looks different! Wow, who knew?
If an adult Neandertal fell through a wormhole into modern times, then it would probably be the case that he couldn’t be happy except as a hunter-gatherer. Same thing as if an adult hunter-gatherer from the Amazon basin fell through a wormhole and ended up in Manhattan. But if a baby from the Amazon basin ends up in foster care in New York, that baby will grow up just fine. Of course, a Neandertal baby can’t be raised exactly the same way a modern human baby could be. But it won’t be an automaton that could only replicate the exact way of life Neandertals lived 50,000 years ago any more than a gorilla or a chimp is an automaton that can only replicate life in the jungle.
This is silly, we’re not contemplating creating a self-sustaining population of Neanderthals that lasts a hundred thousand years, just one or two individuals. Neanderthals co-existed with humans for tens of thousands of years, so I suspect one can live out a normal lifetime.
Plus, its not like we’re going to be competing with it for an evolutionary nitch. Rather the oppostie.
Only the direct victim, or in some circumstances, living descendants. Neither would apply to this scenario.
This goes on every day. The motivations might vary wildly, but countless people have been created for no other purpose than curiosity.
I don’t think this is applicable- the world has changed for lots of extinct species; if we could bring back the Passenger Pigeon (in small numbers), I don’t believe there would be anything wrong with this.
I don’t believe so. As I said before, any duty is to the victims or possibly the living descendants of victims, and no one else. Actually, considering that most non-African people have a small amount of Neanderthal ancestry, there may be billions of living descendants today. With this kind of time scale, though, I think it’s pretty irrelevant.
There are no Neanderthals to consider. Do we need to resurrect the Tasmanian people because they all died out? I don’t see how that even makes any sense.
What “purpose” do we need to create a human life? What purpose does anyone have when they reproduce?
Knock yourself out. It wouldn’t bother me one bit if you gave yourself a tail.
No. They were simply absorbed into our population. And that would almost certainly happen again if they were to be brought back.
T
No. Why would we?
The problem is, we can’t realistically provide that environment, not long term and certainly not for an expanding population. There’s simply no room on the planet for hunter-gatherer societies any more; we farmer-types have crowded them out completely. All that’s left of the “natural” pre-farming world is carefully set-aside areas of parkland. How many hunter-gatherers could Rocky Mountain National Park or Glacier National Park (or their equivalent areas in Europe) support long-term?
The old Neanderthal habitat is occupied now - by us. If the cloned Neanderthals couldn’t comfortably coexist in our modern society, there’s really no place left for them to go. (Which is also true of the great apes, whose populations are plummeting worldwide for the same reason - habitat loss.)
I dunno anything about ethics or philosophy but I do know if a planet of neanderthals decided to clone one or two long-extinct homo sapiens and I was one of them, I’d be depressed as hell.
You don’t, in fact, know that.
Well it’s just common sense that being the only one in your species would make you a public oddity. But using your “you don’t know that” line of thinking what right do you have as a scientist to play that card.
Why do you assume that the cloned neanderthal could only be a hunter/gatherer? We were only hunters and gatherers back then too. Raised as a human, and with the access to our education systems, he could likely learn any number of trades/professions.