Poll: Should we clone a Neanderthal?

[Hunter65416]

Apparently its entirely possible, This one scientist says he only needs a willing human woman to act as a surrogate mother, but this isn't really a question of feasibility rather than 'morality'. I cant see why not really, Neanderthals were intelligent beings, according to some scientist they could even be more intelligent than we are. I say why not, we could learn a lot.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/9814620/I-can-create-Neanderthal-baby-I-just-need-willing-woman.html

 

[DeadRise17]

Although I can see the creation of a Neanderthal as a point for Neanderthal study, it would lead to some pressing morality issues. Notably, it is not merely an animal, but not a human. Do we put it in a zoo, or a classroom? Should we rebuild the Neanderthal species? Should we slaughter the Neanderthal species when they rise against us?

It is all a question of 'should'.

 

[Keoul]

Sure why the hell not.
Screw morality! Rapture had no morale restraints and just look at it's technology!

On a serious note if they do go through with it, they must give it basic human rights, treat it as a human, not a lab subject and I'd support it.

 

[Darken12]

Why should we condemn an intelligent being to accelerated ageing, genetic conditions, a society they will never fit in, and quite possibly an utterly miserable life, just to satisfy our curiosity?

The fact that we're actually considering it goes a long way to explain why we scientists get so much flak from the general public. I had Bioethics at college for a reason.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It raises questions about whether or not he or she is human. And people will disagree, violently. Life expectancy would be very low.

Would this Neanderthal be able to vote? Get married? Which nations would allow him or her within their borders as a person?

 

[lechat]

argh ethics
for starters i don't really care about paleontology or even give a fuck if evolution is or isn't a thing, i just don't really see what we have to gain from bringing them back.

basically what scientists will do is bring one to life, then time allowing see if they can edumacate them then when they die (or before) they chop the guy into pieces. i imagine the case study will read like this:

study neanderthal
intelligence: dude was/wasn't smart
strength: seems stronger than me (maybe i should work out more)
immunity: wasn't a fan of any viruses we made him eat
social: seems like a bit of a dick. more electrical shocks and cages didn't seem to make him any nicer
biology: seems to be made of cells and shit

results
subject appears to be a ape man thing which while physically strong doesn't appear to like be chopped into pieces.

applications
IDK we can now go to mars and solve world hunger or sumthin?

 

[Esotera]

Hell no, we don't even have a complete Neanderthal genome yet, so it's pointless to start until we've actually finished that. There is also a lot of debate at the minute as to whether Homo Sapiens destroyed or just interbred with the Neanderthals, so there's a good chance we're dealing with the ethics of cloning a full human, or at least a creature with comparable intelligence.

We need to refine the cloning process a lot more before recreating extinct sentient life...we should start with de-extincting species that we've destroyed like wooly mammoths.

 

[DefunctTheory]

"Technically, putting together fragments of DNA is feasible," Crystal said. "Are we putting it together correctly? We know that one letter in the wrong place can be fatal."

One-letter deformities, called monogenic disorders, include cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, Fragile X syndrome, Huntington's disease, and thousands of other life-threatening problems, Crystal said.

Single-gene mistakes are possible when scientists are cloning an organism for which they have a model of completed DNA, Crystal said. But a Neanderthal clone would involve much more guesswork because scientists don't have any reference to tell them that they're about to make a fatal mistake.

"It's a problem for whether you're trying to put together a dinosaur or trying to put together a Neanderthal," Crystal said. "There's nothing to compare to. There's no gold standard."

Caplan added that it's possible many Neanderthal stillborns and Neanderthals born with extreme disabilities would precede a healthy Neanderthal baby.

I guess we lucked out. One scientist said cloning a neanderthal would be easy. The rest of them are pulling out list as long as my arm as to why its a shitty idea.

As for the ethical reasoning for not doing it... theirs exactly one thing that matters. What do you call a person who's very existence was only permitted due to state or personnel needs independent of emotion?

 

[NightmareExpress]

The world in which they died off in was a much different place.
If we've learned anything of them from archaeology, it's that they weren't too far different from the modern man.
They harnessed the power of fire, cooked food (meat/vegetables, though primarily the first), utilized tools that they made themselves and traded for (with modern man and cro-magnon) and even had the gene/bone for language use.

Really, it would be interesting.
I imagine it's entirely possible that they could adapt to modern living, and would without a doubt be eligible for "human status". But until the day that the cloning process could be done relatively safely, I'd like for it to remain a wistful dream. Also...give the poor sod/ette a friend while you're at it. I imagine it would be surreal enough to learn that you've essentially been reincarnated from tens of thousands of years prior never mind being the only one.