Ethical Question: Cloning Neanderthal

Taft2016

Taft2016

Verified User
Developing evidence suggests that Neanderthal was a separate and distinct species from modern man.

Developing technology suggests it may someday be possible to clone a Neanderthal from recovered DNA.

Even though human surrogates would be used for the cloning process, would the ethics of human cloning come into play?

Or because they are a separate species, would it simply be a matter of the ethics of cloning extinct species, such as the woolly mammoth?

Once cloned, would it be ethical to use Neanderthals as a workforce for modern man, much as we used other livestock for labor?

They would be pretty handy to have around. Higher intelligence than other livestock, and probably a capacity to even understand our languages, perhaps even communicate intelligently.

Opinions?
 
just what we need. a species of slave workers...:rolleyes:

would there be illegal Neanderthal 's crossing the border looking for work?
 
anatta said:
just what we need. a species of slave workers...:rolleyes:

would there be illegal Neanderthal 's crossing the border looking for work?
Click to expand...

We do have species that are designated for human consumption basically.... domesticated cattle, fowl, swine...

Horses and water buffalo are used around the world for farm labor.

Looked at from that perspective, wouldn't this be considered an advancement?

Not to mention we use pig heart valves for transplants... theoretically we might get better parts from this cloning.
 
Again, I'm just arguing devil's advocate.

Obviously there are ethical issues involved. I just wonder why we would see them here ...
 
Taft2016 said:
We do have species that are designated for human consumption basically.... domesticated cattle, fowl, swine...

Horses and water buffalo are used around the world for farm labor.

Looked at from that perspective, wouldn't this be considered an advancement?

Not to mention we use pig heart valves for transplants... theoretically we might get better parts from this cloning.
Click to expand...

no. this is insane. it's like Frankenstein or something
 
Taft2016 said:
I'm posing questions, not taking positions.

Yes, I'm serious.
Click to expand...

Actually one theory is that Neanderthals are not truly extinct, but were overthrown by modern man and in the process have become interbred with modern homo sapiens.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/ In fact Europeans are 1 to 2 percent Neanderthal.

neanderthals-extinct-1.jpg
 
anatta said:
no. this is insane. it's like Frankenstein or something
Click to expand...

Not necessarily disagreeing, but how would it differ from cloning a wooley mammoth or saber-toothed tiger, or some other extinct species?

Or like a dodo bird or Tasmanian tiger for instance?
 
Taft2016 said:
Developing evidence suggests that Neanderthal was a separate and distinct species from modern man.

Developing technology suggests it may someday be possible to clone a Neanderthal from recovered DNA.

Even though human surrogates would be used for the cloning process, would the ethics of human cloning come into play?

Or because they are a separate species, would it simply be a matter of the ethics of cloning extinct species, such as the woolly mammoth?

Once cloned, would it be ethical to use Neanderthals as a workforce for modern man, much as we used other livestock for labor?

They would be pretty handy to have around. Higher intelligence than other livestock, and probably a capacity to even understand our languages, perhaps even communicate intelligently.

Opinions?
Click to expand...
I don't like it. Would be too much of a temptation for the unscrupulous left to hijack their attention and groom them into mindless democrat voters.
 
Taft2016 said:
Not necessarily disagreeing, but how would it differ from cloning a wooley mammoth or saber-toothed tiger, or some other extinct species?

Or like a dodo bird or Tasmanian tiger for instance?
Click to expand...

This would be very different because the Neanderthal would presumably be able to comprehend what it was and how it was created. Interesting if a separate male and female were created from unrelated sources, their names could easily be Adam and Eve................
 
Granule said:
I don't like it. Would be too much of a temptation for the unscrupulous left to hijack their attention and groom them into mindless democrat voters.
Click to expand...

Ha ha... good one, but not applicable.

Democrats have mastered the undead vote, but have so far been unsuccessful in enabling the non-human vote.

How far would our ethics of humanity transfer to another human species?

Would the presence of Neanderthal among us eliminate the current racial disparities we recognize among ourselves?
 
TheDonald said:
This would be very different because the Neanderthal would presumably be able to comprehend what it was and how it was created. Interesting if a separate male and female were created from unrelated sources, their names could easily be Adam and Eve................
Click to expand...

Or Adam and Steve, if they were a gay couple.
 
Pocahontas said:
Or Adam and Steve, if they were a gay couple.
Click to expand...

As comical as this may seem, the questions are relevant and highly scientific. As for Adam and Steve, they are an evolutionary dead end. Which is sad because Elton John should clearly have real children that could continue his talent, but he chose to be a dead end.
 
Last edited:
TheDonald said:
As comical as this may seem, the questions are relevant and highly scientific. As for Adam and Steve, they are an evolutionary dead end. Which is sad because Elton John should clearly have real children that could continue his talent, but he chose to be a dead end.
Click to expand...

Adoption laws, being super lax back then, I'm sure Adam and Steve adopted a son, and passed along their amazing cave-drawing skills to him.
 
Darth Omar said:
And if they interbred with modern humans to produce offspring that reproduced, then they weren't a separate species.

Isn't that confusing lol?
Click to expand...

Not confusing at all, see when the bones and cave paintings were found no one had ever looked at DNA information as of yet. However since the DNA of Europeans is 1 to 2 percent Neanderthal then as you said they were not and are not separate species.
 
Darth Omar said:
And if they interbred with modern humans to produce offspring that reproduced, then they weren't a separate species.

Isn't that confusing lol?
Click to expand...

Yes it is.

Unless the theory is they mated further back in the evolutionary process and that they evolved into different species?

Would this be enough to apply the ethics of human cloning to Neanderthal cloning?

PS: there is the liger (lion + tiger) exception to the producing fertile offspring rule. So, it's not inconceivable (hey! best pun ever!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top