Ethical Question: Cloning Neanderthal

[Timshel]

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?

Forget Jurassic Park you want Antebellum Park. All you can think of is how this technology might allow you to own humans?

 

[Timshel]

Technically this would make a "specist" since we're not talking about human beings. We're talking about another species.

But it does make you a racist because you apparently view non-whites in the same category as non-humans.

Interesting.

Neanderthals were/are humans. They are a different human species, but still human.

 

[Taft2016]

Forget Jurassic Park you want Antebellum Park. All you can think of is how this technology might allow you to own humans?

You truly are the Dick from the Internet.

I was posing hypotheticals to discuss ethics connected to the issue.

Why don't you answer some of the questions.... I know they're hard, that's why I never answered them. But since you're so smart:

We breed some species for food, others for farm labor.... what would be the ethical hurdle to using cloned Neanderthals for this purpose?

 

[Timshel]

The original post bumped for Fuckley's review.

To read that and see racism in it is a truly warped perspective.

Clearly he viewed historical slavery as the forced labor of a lesser species.

Sad.

That you have some desire to own other humans is warped.

 

[Taft2016]

That you have some desire to own other humans is warped.

Except I never said any such thing.

Such a perception is a warped misconstruction inside your own racist brain.

PS: neanderthals were a different species than I am. Not so sure about you though.

 

[Timshel]

You truly are the Dick from the Internet.

I was posing hypotheticals to discuss ethics connected to the issue.

Why don't you answer some of the questions.... I know they're hard, that's why I never answered them. But since you're so smart:

We breed some species for food, others for farm labor.... what would be the ethical hurdle to using cloned Neanderthals for this purpose?

THEY ARE HUMANS! That might not be an ethical hurdle for you, but...

I answered the question that interested me. No, it would not be ethical to enslave them.

 

[Timshel]

Except I never said any such thing.

Such a perception is a warped misconstruction inside your own racist brain.

PS: neanderthals were a different species than I am. Not so sure about you though.

Yes, they are a different species of humans. All members of the genus homo are human.

 

[Taft2016]

Yes, they are a different species of humans. All members of the genus homo are human.

So the earlier posts were correct.

If cloned, Democrats would seek to register neanderthals to vote.

Any other species you seek to register in the near future?

 

[Taft2016]

No, it would not be ethical to enslave them.

So you too view associate slavery with lesser species?

Sad.

 

[Timshel]

So the earlier posts were correct.

If cloned, Democrats would seek to register neanderthals to vote.

Any other species you seek to register in the near future?

What kind of stupid response is that?

So you think it would be ok to enslave them but not to take their vote?

 

[Taft2016]

What kind of stupid response is that?

So you think it would be ok to enslave them but not to take their vote?

What kind of stupid response is that?

You can't enslave another species. Do farmers enslave horses or water buffalo to plow their fields?

Do we enslave chickens, cattle, and swine just to eat them?

Yet you would have them all vote.

You're loopy.

 

[Ralph]

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?

The actual evidence "suggests" that the supposed Neanderthal remains are nothing more than Isolated pockets of humans that had incestuous breading to the point of "deformity"....thus when any re-creation of the Neanderthal is presented in in a museum setting....with the wax molding technology they look exactly like the isolated cases of recent history pictures of human inbreeding to the point of deformity.

The DEFLECTION by the pseudo's. Apparently....the Neanderthal/Denisovans...who had inbreeding between their supposed species....had wink, wink, INTER SPECIES MATING WITH HUMANS..right...the truth? The lesser strains of DNA are nothing but a HUMAN DNA minus a few viable DNA strings....in other words HUMAN DNA that has been mutated....or made less than perfect by INBREEDING)

Its laughable the way they attempt to cover the obvious truth. Neanderthal first had inter species sex with the next evolution up the ladder...Denisovan....then this combination supposedly had inter species sex with a Human with a full string of perfect DNA...making another offshoot. Laugh My Ass Off.

The simplest answer is always the correct one. Neanderthal and other supposed species are nothing but examples of isolated pockets of family inbreeding over decades and centuries. Its logical, its reasonable and most of all THE DNA from all contains LESS THAN PERFECT EXAMPLES OF HUMAN DNA....due to documented scientific proof of inbreeding as evidenced from a viable tested archaeological find of a great toe....

They have never found any great pockets of these supposed Neanderthals and other species....just single or no more than a family unit living in an isolated cave somewhere.

news.berkely.edu/2013/12/18/neanderthal-genome-shows-evidence-of-early-human-interbreeding-inbreeding/

All the DNA of all types of supposed Darwinian sub species....contain HUMAN DNA minus the strings that make modern humans....humans. These supposed other species are simply mutated humans that are deformed from centuries of breeding in the same family bloodline. Nature never 'added' anything to the DNA.....nature took away from the existing perfect HUMAN DNA to make abnormal examples of humanity.

 

[Timshel]

So you too view associate slavery with lesser species?

Sad.

Slavery is system that allows the ownership of humans. You are the only one that seems to think their species is relevant.

Of course, I said nothing about "lesser" and would never use that word on this topic. There is no reason to think of other species as "lesser." That's your deep narcissism and needing to feel that something or someone has declared you "greater."

 

[Taft2016]

The actual evidence "suggests" that the supposed Neanderthal remains are nothing more than Isolated pockets of humans that had incestuous breading to the point of "deformity"....thus when any re-creation of the Neanderthal is presented in in a museum setting....with the wax molding technology they look exactly like the isolated cases of recent history pictures of inbreeding to the point of deformity.

The DEFLECTION by the pseudo's. Apparently....the Neanderthal/Denisovans...who had inbreeding between their supposed species....had wink, wink, INTER SPECIES MATING WITH HUMANS..right...the truth? The lesser strains of DNA are nothing but a HUMAN DNA minus a few viable DNA strings....in other words HUMAN DNA that has been mutated....or made less than perfect by INBREEDING)

All the DNA of all types of supposed Darwinian sub species....contain HUMAN DNA minus the strings that make modern humans....humans. These supposed other species are simply mutated humans that are deformed from centuries of breeding in the same family bloodline.

See Dick?

Now that's a thankable post. It contributed something to the discussion.

 

[Timshel]

What kind of stupid response is that?

You can't enslave another species. Do farmers enslave horses or water buffalo to plow their fields?

Do we enslave chickens, cattle, and swine just to eat them?

Yet you would have them all vote.

You're loopy.

None of those of those other species are humans, moron.

 

[Taft2016]

Slavery is system that allows the ownership of humans. You are the only one that seems to think their species is relevant.

Of course, I said nothing about "lesser" and would never use that word on this topic. There is no reason to think of other species as "lesser." That's your deep narcissism and needing to feel that something or someone has declared you "greater."

Obviously they were lesser, otherwise they would have survived like we did.

But here's a question.... neanderthals would have shared the class of "Great Ape" with us...

Is it slavery to keep chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans in zoo cages? Or just unlawful imprisonment?

 

[Timshel]

Obviously they were lesser, otherwise they would have survived like we did.

But here's a question.... neanderthals would have shared the class of "Great Ape" with us...

Is it slavery to keep chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans in zoo cages? Or just unlawful imprisonment?

None of those are humans, but I certainly don't think it would be ethical to try turn any of them into some sort of domesticated pet/slave either.

 

[Taft2016]

None of those are humans, but I certainly don't think it would be ethical to try turn any of them into some sort of domesticated pet/slave either.

So you would bestow human rights upon another species?

How about American Constitutional rights?

Did the Founders mean "All men are created equal", or "all human species are created equal"?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Not necessarily. They expect a modern elephant would be a suitable surrogate for a woolly mammoth clone, and a human could do the same for a Neanderthal.



We breed other species for food, and others for farm work. How would this be markedly different in terms of ethics? Which is really the point of what I was trying to explore in this thread.

Once again, species / genus.

It would be wrong; because you are automatically designating them as non-humans, which is exactly what some have said about Blacks and the Nazi's said about the Jews.

 

[Taft2016]

Once again, species / genus.

It would be wrong; because you are automatically designating them as non-humans, which is exactly what some have said about Blacks and the Nazi's said about the Jews.

I'm not classifying them as anything really, other than a different species.

I'm arguing devil's advocate points to explore the ethics involved.

There is objective science to support that they were difference species, something the Nazis or slave owners did not have.