I said yes only because I believe there are things that can be done, short of creating a sentient Neanderthal (define cloning?), to learn so much. I’m probably more of a No in terms of making a whole one. Maybe that’s a maybe?
I specifically left out maybe or depends as poll options because otherwise everyone would choose those. I wanted a sense of where people fell if they had to make a choice and make assumptions about the way the cloning was done and all the ethical, legal, etc. issues.
Essentially, pretty much all Yes votes would become No votes if some parameters were changed, and vice versa. That’s why I didn’t define any parameters for the poll. I see now that the Yeses are increasing their lead on the Noes.
This is a bit of a false dichotomy, either we kick them out into the world to be hassled by ignorant morons and wish them the best, or we stick electrodes in their brains and poke them with sticks all day.
What I say is that with the first generation we would need a specialised environment and professional care. Sticking them in a regular nursery straight away would be reckless folly, there are far too many unknowns and variables. What if they respond to disagreements with violence? What if, when the rest of the class is reading The Very Hungry Caterpillar they’re wanting to study advanced calculus (or vice versa?). What if the language centres of their brains can’t pick up the basic structure of modern languages? In a specialised environment these questions can be addressed as they arise, with minimised emotional (for example, studying their psychology and ensuring that their mental health is tip-top) or physical risks to them or us.
Absolutely, we definitely should consider ourselves to have the legal responsibilities of a parent towards the infants we create.
The other option, the safest one, is not to clone them at all. Then neither we nor them gain a thing, nothing ventured nothing gained. But going back to the child-parent relationship, no child asks to be born, everyone is pretty much stuck with that, and the circumstances they are born in. To me there doesn’t seem to be anything immoral about having children.
Well, to take another example the various royal families of the world have no choice but to be born into that circumstance, yet HM the Queen has a bunch of fellas guarding her house so no nutters can threaten her. Yet she can do pretty much whatever she wants.
Kobayashi, if I’ve learned one thing from Disney films, it’s that female royalty are poor slaves with no liberty who wish they were as free as the peasant class.
Are you suggesting that our most gracious sovereign has no liberty?! She glares in your general direction!
Which is exactly what I’m saying. We can either put another human being into shitty circumstances, or we can refrain from doing so. Guess which one I think is the ethical option?
Of course you want to learn more about Neanderthals. But “because I want to” doesn’t give you the right to do so at the expense of another.
I read an interesting hypothesis last year that they were smarter than us (did they not have a greater brain:body mass ratio?), but we outcompeted them physically through things like persistence hunting.
I say bring them back, with full protection under the law, and create a social taboo against discriminating against them.
Well, that’s my point - there’s no reason that they would be brought back in shitty circumstances. As one of the most incredible scientific advances in human history they would no doubt live in circumstances superior to most humans, the most advanced medical and psychiatric care, education (and possibly communication, depending on their language capabilities) specifically tailored to them.
It’d be a mutually beneficial relationship, we learn more than we could possible imagine, they get another shot at existence, a chance cruel nature has denied to 99% of species that have ever existed. I think you’re still assuming that we’d either treat them as lab rats and stick electrodes in their brains or kick them out into the world and hope for the best. As I made clear above, I’d be opposed to treating intelligent beings treated like this to.
@ Cisco, this would be another plus; as intelligent beings (possibly more intelligent than us) they could contribute in their own right.
Okay, this made me laugh. 
I think you’re joking. I hope you are.
We haven’t even eradicated racism yet, and you’re going to convince 7 billion people that Neanderthals aren’t “different from us” – and quickly enough that it would happen within his lifetime?
OTOH, if we clone Neanderthals, we’ll probably be cloning humans too, so maybe growing up a clone wouldn’t be so unusual. Not more unusual than say, being part of a fertility clinic litter, or say, being Michael Jackson’s kid.
I think you’re missing my point. It doesn’t matter whether they end up living in a house or in a cage, both are equally bad options. It doesn’t matter if we’re not “sticking electrodes in their brains” if they don’t have the freedom to leave. What kind of freedom would they have? Stay isolated in a lab, essentially in a zoo, or go out into the world and face all kinds of verbal, and likely physical, abuse. Some choice.
How are those two options not detrimental and cruel to inflict upon someone, particularly when that someone had no say in the decision? How are those not shitty circumstances?
You may not think that it’s ever immoral to have children; but I, personally, do think it’s extremely unethical to have children when you can’t provide them with an emotionally healthy environment. People who can’t do this, should choose not to have children, and the same applies to scientists who make children in a lab.
It is not a mutually beneficial relationship when the guys running the lab are the only ones benefiting – and the only ones who agreed to the “relationship” in the first place.
I’m not denying that special measures would need to be taken to protect their rights and liberties as intelligent beings. But my point is they would ultimately end up having a better life than billions of humans born today in poverty who don’t have any sort of real freedom whatsoever, and we don’t consider third-world childbirth an unethical thing, rather try and alleviate the circumstances which lead to the suffering. Which could easily be done for the most valuable scientific discovery in the world, we simply wouldn’t risk them going out to get beaten up or whatever.
I absolutely agree that children have a fundamental right to a healthy environment, but there’s no reason to assume that they wouldn’t have this from a ‘lab’ environment. We would provide for an emotionally healthy environment as a matter of course; since we know nothing about their psychology top professionals would give their left arm for five minutes with our Neanderthal.
I disagree fundamentally. There’s no reason that they couldn’t be raised as normal children. No doubt after a bit of trial and error and discovering the unknown about their development - while definitely intelligent, let’s not pretend that they are identical in every way to modern humans - “The populations had been separate for hundreds of thousands of years and I think there would have been significant physical and behavioural differences between them. However, larger samples would be desirable to get a more complete picture, and hopefully those will follow soon.”
Although there’s also the possibility that one raised today, in our culture, wouldn’t be immediately identifiable as a Neanderthal -
“Some early portrayals of Neanderthals were skewed because they were based on the interpretation of a single, nearly complete skeleton of an elderly male who, due to arthritis, had a number of skeletal abnormalities. Later reconstructions of Neanderthal appearance, based on a larger number of specimens, have moderated the perceived differences with modern humans somewhat. Some researchers have even proposed that should a living Neanderthal be found (suitably dressed and groomed) walking the streets of a contemporary city no one would notice.”
Of course, without a living being we’ll never conclusively know.