First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Let us clone a Neanderthal!!!! (my logic!)
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 2/18/09


This is the reason why I think Neanderthals should be brought back. Currently, we have expanded the circle of protection from ourselves to others of our group and then to strangers outside our group (other races, other religions), and will continue to expand it . I don’t think we will ever see unanimous equality between species until we actually can see another species similar enough to humans for this species barrier of ethics to be broken down.

It is a well known effect that discrimination decreases as diversity increases, but currently we have no diversity among our genus. We modern humans are the only species in our genus, so it is then hardly surprising that many humans are extremely intolerant and bigoted towards other species. What would their reaction be, then, when confronted with a young Neanderthal child? Will they consider the child to be less than human for not belonging to the superior species, just as a girl child was in the past considered a lesser human for belonging to the superior gender? Or will they realise that their species is not superior, and that other species are their moral equals.

Evidence suggests that Neanderthals had culture, religion, art and, vitally, language. A key factor in removing any bigotry is for the group being discriminated against to be able to speak out against such behaviour (noting that the ability to speak vocally is not required, as deaf and dumb humans would no doubt have me emphasize). Therefore, it seems likely that Neanderthals will be in the best position to argue against speciesism, being a member of another species.

There are three common argument for humans to have rights. First is that human are unique, exceptional among other life forms, and (sometimes) the sacred creation of a divine being. And, this argument goes, any human being is therefore deserving of rights just for being human. As I’ve argued previously, this argument is blatant bigotry, and therefore combating this viewpoint is one important reason for bringing Neanderthals back!

Second, a being is said to deserve rights if it can understand the concept of responsibility. Of course, this doesn’t let humans infants have any rights, so these people usually just fall back on the above mentioned view, and say that it is enough to be a member of a species with the concept of responsibility (why species? why not genus, or family?). Anyway, it appears that this will be a moot point, as it would be likely that Neanderthals would have had some concept of moral responsibility if they had language and formed groups with religions and cultural traditions.

Lastly, and the view I favour, is that rights are political representations of our responsibility towards other autonomous sentient beings. If a being is capable of valuing its life, it can then consent to life or death, and therefore only with this consent can its life be permanently and irreversibly ended. From this, therefore, I conclude that this being has a right to life. Likewise if a being is capable of valuing being free of pain, we give a right to not be tortured or suffer unnecessarily. Under this viewpoint, not only would Neanderthals have almost all the rights of humans, but many of these rights could also be extended to other animals, especially the great apes.

It may be, then, that speciesism will always remain, or at least until we can develop human-level artificial intelligence or encounter human-level alien life. But even without this moral imperative seeming likely to be successful, the field of evolutionary anthropology would be accelerated tremendously by examining the difference between Neanderthals and humans. .


By the way, for a fictional account of this, I have been made aware that a series of novels by Jasper Fforde has mention of bringing Neanderthals back via science, and the subsequent Neanderthal rights movement



Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 2/18/09


OKay...
I doubt Neanderthals would be intelligent enough to function in our societies. There's no way they would get all 'the 'human level of rights'', like to vote or drive, etc., for the same reasons we don't let monkeys have that level of rights. Neanderthals were primitive, if they somehow brought them back they would be treated the same as most apes, except studied alot more. They would be kept in captivity where scientists would study them and they could provide lots of new useful research. But there's no way people would actually let them be in society, like I said before, they are too primitive.


First is that human are unique, exceptional among other life forms, and (sometimes) the sacred creation of a divine being. And, this argument goes, any human being is therefore deserving of rights just for being human. As I’ve argued previously, this argument is blatant bigotry, and therefore combating this viewpoint is one important reason for bringing Neanderthals back!


How is that bigotry? lol it's true.



Evidence suggests that Neanderthals had culture, religion, art and, vitally, language. A key factor in removing any bigotry is for the group being discriminated against to be able to speak out against such behaviour (noting that the ability to speak vocally is not required, as deaf and dumb humans would no doubt have me emphasize). Therefore, it seems likely that Neanderthals will be in the best position to argue against speciesism, being a member of another species.


Even if evidence suggests those things, they most likely would still be too primitive. lol 'specie-ism '
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 2/18/09 , edited 2/18/09

Yei wrote:



OKay...
I doubt Neanderthals would be intelligent enough to function in our societies. There's no way they would get all 'the 'human level of rights'', like to vote or drive, etc., for the same reasons we don't let monkeys have that level of rights. Neanderthals were primitive, if they somehow brought them back they would be treated the same as most apes, except studied alot more. They would be kept in captivity where scientists would study them and they could provide lots of new useful research. But there's no way people would actually let them be in society, like I said before, they are too primitive.


First is that human are unique, exceptional among other life forms, and (sometimes) the sacred creation of a divine being. And, this argument goes, any human being is therefore deserving of rights just for being human. As I’ve argued previously, this argument is blatant bigotry, and therefore combating this viewpoint is one important reason for bringing Neanderthals back!


How is that bigotry? lol it's true.



Evidence suggests that Neanderthals had culture, religion, art and, vitally, language. A key factor in removing any bigotry is for the group being discriminated against to be able to speak out against such behaviour (noting that the ability to speak vocally is not required, as deaf and dumb humans would no doubt have me emphasize). Therefore, it seems likely that Neanderthals will be in the best position to argue against speciesism, being a member of another species.


Even if evidence suggests those things, they most likely would still be too primitive. lol 'specie-ism '



Studies have shown that the Neanderthals happen to have a brain at the same level as a Homo-Sapein. Just so you know humans minds have not advanced far from that time. So it is safe to say with the right schooling the Neanderthal could easly pass as a Taxi Driver, or as a welder!

Now lets make fun of humans... Did you know the great apes Pawned Humans, in a short term number game on a touch screen computer. Yes Humans lost to apes in being able to put numbers in order. (Apes 1 humans 0...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX4lV3QC56I&feature=related

And other shows of smarts in are hairy brothers/sisters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRM7vTrIIis&feature=related

Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 2/18/09
Whoaaa I never knew apes were that smart. omg they got amazing memory.

If Neanderthals are as smart as you say, then my guess is they would be taught to do specific work. Like the hard labor or tedious stuff. Kind of like slaves....

lol everyone would get their own to clean up around the house. They would be raised from birth to be nice in society and teach some of them their specific jobs. They would not get the same level of rights as humans, but people would probably make their own special set of rights. That would be pretty cool actually.

18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 2/21/09
'You Know I moved away from doing religous debates, but in then end it seems to me that it has to be something to do with religion to get people to post.
So kids think about it this way, if there 8 other known human like races on earth beffor the Homo-Sapeins what makes you think humans are a big step in evolution, we are just animals like all the other animals around us!
559 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / Feminism is made...
Offline
Posted 2/21/09
Well, are Neanderthals even clone-able? I asked that because I honestly have no idea.
Anyways, if they are, why not? It will probably give us a better understanding as to why our hyoid bone is the way it is now. Or why our masseters do not extend up to our parietal bones. It surely is an ingenious idea.
Our hyoid bone, along with our voice box are what makes us able to speak by the way (and frontal lobe of our brain). The masseters of humans is only up to our temporal bone, suggesting that we have weaker jaw power but bigger cranium because we do not have anything up there. So better brain development but weaker jaws.
Anyway, it will be also nice because as you have said, there will be another modern human-like creature. And a possible new proof that Creation Theory is a mere farce. Fun.
And to your new topic...
humans are not really a big step, they just happen to have a better cognition capability at the expense of weaker senses and muscles. But yeah, in a way, it is a big evolutionary step, because it gives us higher capability to adapt by modifying our environment instead of letting our environment modify us.
Unlike the ignorant Creation Theory, which ignores the possibility of other species before the named animals, I think we really should clone them just to rub it in the faces of Creationists.
15437 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
71
Offline
Posted 2/21/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



If a being is capable of valuing its life, it can then consent to life or death


How do you consent to life? doesn't the fact we are cloning neanderthals put us in a power relationship? I mean, we would be the masters of life and death, if they are capable of dignity, then we'd be robbing them by artificially birthing them.
How can humans view a species that exists only because of human achievement as equal? They'd be no better than zoo animals, created for our viewing pleasure. For people to recognize that we aren't the only relevant beings, there would have to be a sustainable and independent population, which we would have to facilitate, which hardly makes them independent.
Don't white supremacists already see dark skin people as neanderthals? How would socializing one take steam out of that argument? Wouldn't they just say its the power of white science or whatever?
While I'm sure cloning a neanderthal would have enormous scientific value, especially in the field of genetics/biology, I'm afraid it would create massive amounts of hysteria amongst bible thumpers and racist bigots and ultimately cause social harm.
I think the real problem is that people would just keep saying that some people are better than others...now ALIENS, that would give us something to band together against.

18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 2/28/09

jewishplayer wrote:

Well, are Neanderthals even clone-able? I asked that because I honestly have no idea.
Anyways, if they are, why not? It will probably give us a better understanding as to why our hyoid bone is the way it is now. Or why our masseters do not extend up to our parietal bones. It surely is an ingenious idea.
Our hyoid bone, along with our voice box are what makes us able to speak by the way (and frontal lobe of our brain). The masseters of humans is only up to our temporal bone, suggesting that we have weaker jaw power but bigger cranium because we do not have anything up there. So better brain development but weaker jaws.
Anyway, it will be also nice because as you have said, there will be another modern human-like creature. And a possible new proof that Creation Theory is a mere farce. Fun.
And to your new topic...
humans are not really a big step, they just happen to have a better cognition capability at the expense of weaker senses and muscles. But yeah, in a way, it is a big evolutionary step, because it gives us higher capability to adapt by modifying our environment instead of letting our environment modify us.
Unlike the ignorant Creation Theory, which ignores the possibility of other species before the named animals, I think we really should clone them just to rub it in the faces of Creationists.


Yes we have there DNA.. We can clone them if we wanted to..
68814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Denmark
Offline
Posted 2/28/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


jewishplayer wrote:

Well, are Neanderthals even clone-able? I asked that because I honestly have no idea.
Anyways, if they are, why not? It will probably give us a better understanding as to why our hyoid bone is the way it is now. Or why our masseters do not extend up to our parietal bones. It surely is an ingenious idea.
Our hyoid bone, along with our voice box are what makes us able to speak by the way (and frontal lobe of our brain). The masseters of humans is only up to our temporal bone, suggesting that we have weaker jaw power but bigger cranium because we do not have anything up there. So better brain development but weaker jaws.
Anyway, it will be also nice because as you have said, there will be another modern human-like creature. And a possible new proof that Creation Theory is a mere farce. Fun.
And to your new topic...
humans are not really a big step, they just happen to have a better cognition capability at the expense of weaker senses and muscles. But yeah, in a way, it is a big evolutionary step, because it gives us higher capability to adapt by modifying our environment instead of letting our environment modify us.
Unlike the ignorant Creation Theory, which ignores the possibility of other species before the named animals, I think we really should clone them just to rub it in the faces of Creationists.


Yes we have there DNA.. We can clone them if we wanted to..


Hm... are humans cloneable? As far as I'm informed there's still a lot of troubles with cloning that hasn't been sorted out.

I agree that the idea of bringing neanderthals back would be a good idea but I also agree with "FlavorAmazing" that we probably wouldn't regard them as being equals. To me the very reason that animals are given rights and are being protected is that we regard them as being lesser and of no threat to us... whenever animals tend to threaten humankind we make sure that the situation is brought under our control: Either by eradicating the animals that threaten us, by controlling them somehow e.g. by reducing their numbers or placing them in captivity or by instructing the humans on how to deal with the animals. Now if a species was to arise that could compete with humanity the old game of life and death would be reinvoked and once again humanity would step in an eradicate the threat. Why should we be any better at accepting Neandethals when we aren't even skilled at accepting other members of the human race? (seperated by skin or national borders)

Now why do I then think of it as being a good idea? Two reasons. 1) I think it would shed some additional light on our origins and how great the difference between humans and neanderthals is (science is always fun). 2) In the improbably situation where a fight for humanity's existence was to arise, we might actually get a situation where "strong" traits (strenght, health, intelligence etc.) are being favored instead of the constant weakening of our species that is happening today...

Actually I think we should aim to design a superior race that respects nature and then go extinct ourselves; we're a pityful and stupid race that disregards everything around us. A plague on Earth.

Question: When you say that we'd consider other species as being moral equals do you then mean that killing animals should be just as bad as killing humans? In my oppinion we differ simply because we differ. All races are entitled to their own arrogance and belief that their race is the best and most entitled to succes... it's the natural way.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 2/28/09

Phasespace wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


jewishplayer wrote:

Well, are Neanderthals even clone-able? I asked that because I honestly have no idea.
Anyways, if they are, why not? It will probably give us a better understanding as to why our hyoid bone is the way it is now. Or why our masseters do not extend up to our parietal bones. It surely is an ingenious idea.
Our hyoid bone, along with our voice box are what makes us able to speak by the way (and frontal lobe of our brain). The masseters of humans is only up to our temporal bone, suggesting that we have weaker jaw power but bigger cranium because we do not have anything up there. So better brain development but weaker jaws.
Anyway, it will be also nice because as you have said, there will be another modern human-like creature. And a possible new proof that Creation Theory is a mere farce. Fun.
And to your new topic...
humans are not really a big step, they just happen to have a better cognition capability at the expense of weaker senses and muscles. But yeah, in a way, it is a big evolutionary step, because it gives us higher capability to adapt by modifying our environment instead of letting our environment modify us.
Unlike the ignorant Creation Theory, which ignores the possibility of other species before the named animals, I think we really should clone them just to rub it in the faces of Creationists.


Yes we have there DNA.. We can clone them if we wanted to..


Hm... are humans cloneable? As far as I'm informed there's still a lot of troubles with cloning that hasn't been sorted out.

I agree that the idea of bringing neanderthals back would be a good idea but I also agree with "FlavorAmazing" that we probably wouldn't regard them as being equals. To me the very reason that animals are given rights and are being protected is that we regard them as being lesser and of no threat to us... whenever animals tend to threaten humankind we make sure that the situation is brought under our control: Either by eradicating the animals that threaten us, by controlling them somehow e.g. by reducing their numbers or placing them in captivity or by instructing the humans on how to deal with the animals. Now if a species was to arise that could compete with humanity the old game of life and death would be reinvoked and once again humanity would step in an eradicate the threat. Why should we be any better at accepting Neandethals when we aren't even skilled at accepting other members of the human race? (seperated by skin or national borders)

Now why do I then think of it as being a good idea? Two reasons. 1) I think it would shed some additional light on our origins and how great the difference between humans and neanderthals is (science is always fun). 2) In the improbably situation where a fight for humanity's existence was to arise, we might actually get a situation where "strong" traits (strenght, health, intelligence etc.) are being favored instead of the constant weakening of our species that is happening today...

Actually I think we should aim to design a superior race that respects nature and then go extinct ourselves; we're a pityful and stupid race that disregards everything around us. A plague on Earth.

Question: When you say that we'd consider other species as being moral equals do you then mean that killing animals should be just as bad as killing humans? In my oppinion we differ simply because we differ. All races are entitled to their own arrogance and belief that their race is the best and most entitled to succes... it's the natural way.


From my reading Humans are Cloneable. At that there is two ways to go about cloning a human but I will not get into that today.

In the end I do agree with you wen it comes to how Human would act. Killing or inslaving is indeed in are nature as sick rejects of the animal kingdom. '


'As for the killing of animals?'

I think of Humans as Animals, so I think human should act like animals. "In other words, we should only kill if the need to kill comes about. Life is in danger kill it, Need its meat or you will starve Kill it, Killing for fun or just for the sport of it is pointless and its something A lesser beast under the level of animals would do. So there is my opinion on killing animals and people alike.




68814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Denmark
Offline
Posted 2/28/09 , edited 2/28/09


Ok, seems like we agree on this one... nothing much to add on my behalf .
3498 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Nowheresville, MI
Offline
Posted 2/28/09 , edited 2/28/09
I looked into this subject at a website about "human enhancement and biopolitics". I found a comment someone left that reflects my take on this idea of cloning Neanderthals. This person said it a lot better than I can so here it is....


"Though I must, for the sake of being possibly redundant rather than important issues being forgotten, point out that a single Neanderthal or a few cannot represent all of them, especially as they will be stripped bare of any culture their ancestors had, leaving naught but their bodies. These new Neanderthals would never ever have anything to do with the ones in the past, except for some of the biology (and they’ll probably be more closely related to each other than the ones in the past). The new Neanderthals would truly be our contemporary brethren, the same way the old ones were to their homo sapiens sapiens.
I fear that while different cultural and ethnic groups of homo sapiens sapiens may get the feeling of being closer, the racism will get shifted to the neanderthals, or possibly that people will take this as an opportunity to divide homo sapiens sapiens into stronger genetic subgroups and subsequent racist abuse of something that actually could be medically useful. The pessimist part in me thinks that increasing diversity will only make things worse, unless we all have a common goal we’re working to. Diversity breeds tolerance only if the diversity is experienced up close, but we can’t force people to get more mixed for the sake of that and its local side-effects alone. If it comes as a minor result of far more important goals, if people choose it themselves, they will be more keen to embrace the changes."


Posted 2/28/09
Let's not.
They're ugly.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 2/28/09

Ruki_x wrote:

Let's not.
They're ugly.


'I am betting a large group of people think the same of you.'
Am I right?
Or am I right!

Posted 2/28/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


Ruki_x wrote:

Let's not.
They're ugly.


'I am betting a large group of people think the same of you.'
Am I right?
Or am I right!



Oh, in my face. D:
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.