IEET > Rights > HealthLongevity > Personhood > Staff > Enablement > Mike Treder > Innovation
Cloning Neanderthals
Mike Treder   Aug 12, 2009   Ethical Technology  

Neanderthals are the closest evolutionary cousins to modern humans. We shared the planet with them until about 30,000 years ago when we probably killed them off. Now, as genetic and cloning technologies continue to advance rapidly, we are gaining the ability to actually bring back the Neanderthals—to resurrect them as it were. Should we?

Just last February, an article in the New York Times brought this amazing news:

Scientists report that they have reconstructed the genome of Neanderthals, a human species that was driven to extinction some 30,000 years ago, probably by the first modern humans to enter Europe. . .

Possessing the Neanderthal genome raises the possibility of bringing Neanderthals back to life. Dr. George Church, a leading genome researcher at the Harvard Medical School, said Thursday that a Neanderthal could be brought to life with present technology for about $30 million.

Ron Bailey of Reason magazine then proposed that if we can bring back the Neanderthals, we probably should. Bailey’s reasoning is interesting. He argues, first, that there is nothing inherently unethical about cloning either humans or Neanderthals (nor, presumably, any other species), and that the important issue really is not whether we should do it, but what reasons we might have for doing so.

Bailey’s primary justification for cloning our stocky cousins is to find out how close they are to us in terms of intellectual capacity and moral sensibility. Putting it that way might make the idea seem squeamishly close to a Doctor Moreau style experiment, but considering that we (or our prehistoric ancestors, anyway) probably destroyed the Neanderthal line originally, it may be that we have a moral obligation to bring them back, if we can.

John Tierney of the New York Times agrees with Bailey:

If we discovered a small band of Neanderthals hidden somewhere, we’d do everything to keep them alive, just as we try to keep alive so many other endangered populations of humans and animals—including man-biting mosquitoes and man-eating polar bears. We’ve also spent lots of money reintroducing animals into ecosystems from which they had vanished. Shouldn’t be at least as solicitous to our fellow hominids?

So, what do you think? If we can create Neanderthal clones, should we? A new IEET reader poll asks for your opinion, with these possible responses:

  • No, their existence in a modern world would be untenable.
  • Yes, we owe it to them since we killed them.
  • No, because they might kill us.
  • Yes, it would be an interesting experiment.
  • No, because that would be “playing God.”
  • I have mixed feelings and can’t decide.

Please give us your input!

Mike Treder is a former Managing Director of the IEET.



COMMENTS

Yes, it would be an interesting experiment.

They may possibly have immunities to things we don’t, as well as vulnerabilities to things that we don’t, thus furthering immunological research. It would, within our lifetimes, provide our only true glance into other humanoids, without having to leave our planet and find one.

That, and in the grand scheme of things, 30 million is chump change. Let’s do it.

No, because of the racial hatred they would undoubtedly face.

With a multi-million dollar price tag, we would never create more than a handful of them. What would it be like to be a member of such a small minority? Would these Neanderthals ever be able to exist as equals in our society? How could they earn a living for themselves, other than as freakshows? Would they be dependent on the instituion that created them, forever at it’s mercy, never free? Would they hesitate to leave the lab out of fear of being “caveman bashed”? How many millions of humans would view these beings of abominations and want them dead? Such hate groups would surely wipe out the handful of cloned Neanderthals long before they had a chance to reproduce on their own and become numerous enough to challenge us. “All this has happened before, all this will happend again”. If we brought them back, we’d just end up wiping them out again.

Neanderthals are sapient, and we have no right to create sapient beings as science experiments, especially when they’re sure to be second class citizens.

I vehemently disagree with the notion that it is morally neutral to bring species back to life, or to create them. The morality of such acts can only be judged on the basis of whether, if the creature is sentient, whether it will have a good life, and whether it will contribute positively to the lives of those around it.

I highly suggest everyone read David Pearce’s Hedonistic Imperative. Since it is so relevant, I will quote him at length.

http://www.hedweb.com/hedethic/hedon1.htm#feline

“In future, anyhow, the life-forms which exist on this planet will be there purely because we allow them to be so, or choose to create them. This smacks of hubris; it is also true. Increasingly, we are able to configure the matter and energy of the world in any way we so desire consistent with the laws of physics. So the moral and practical question arises: what other organisms, and therefore what other modes of experience, are we going either to create or retain “in the wild” outside the gene-banks and computer software libraries in millennia to come?
      One may suspect that most people could bear the possible loss of a few hundred thousand species of beetle with relative equanimity. Familiar if eugenically-enhanced herbivores, on the other hand, can be allowed to graze securely within the confines of a well-regulated natural habitat. They will best be treated with long-acting depot contraceptives to stop uncontrolled breeding. Their happiness should prove easier to engineer genetically than is possible in humans. This is on the assumption that non-humans are less intellectually fastidious in their pleasures than are, on occasion, some members of our own kind.

      Yet what about the carnivorous species? It is easy to romanticise, say, tigers or lions and cats. We admire their magnificent beauty, strength and agility. But we would regard their notional human counterparts as wanton psychopaths of the worst kind. So just as there is no need to recreate the natural habitat of smart, blond, handsome Nazi storm-troopers who can then prey on their natural victims (and Nazis are a no less natural and noteworthy pattern of matter and energy thrown up in the course of evolution, albeit of a type now fortunately extinct), likewise the practice of continuing to breed pre-programmed feline killing machines in homage to Nature is ethically untenable too. It is not, needless to say, the fault of cats that they are prone to torturing mice; but then, given the equations of physics, it isn’t the fault of Nazis they try to persecute Jews. This is no reason to let them continue to do so.

      In a triumph of aestheticism over morality, many animal lovers otherwise sympathetic to the sentiments expressed here will doubtless be aghast at the very idea of losing such loveable companions and time-honoured killers as members of the cat family; but then they are unlikely to be hunted down in terror or physically eaten alive, which lends a rather different perspective to any issue at all.”

EmbraceUnity wrote: “The morality of such acts can only be judged on the basis of whether, if the creature is sentient, whether it will have a good life, and whether it will contribute positively to the lives of those around it.”

I know a man with Downs Syndrome, and it is because of his condition that he has contributed positively to the lives of those around him—they are forced to become more giving people.

Geico commercials!

I should have mentioned the Geico commercials with the cavemen!

Frank,

I would say that it would not be ethical to specifically seek out the creation of people with Down’s Syndrome. Not because they aren’t happy or positive contributors to society, and not because we want to avoid “playing God,” but because that is likely not the highest and best possible use of our powers. I don’t think any proponents of specifically selecting for Down’s Syndrome would be able to shoulder the burden of proof that it really would be the best possible choice.

There is this idea of “neurodiversity.” While I think almost anyone could agree that we often benefit from differing perspectives,  this idea of “neurodiversity” is simply a euphemism for specifically preserving and celebrating what can only be termed disabilities.

This idea is taken to extremes on many issues, from “fat acceptance” to the tolerating of intolerant religions.

Sure we need to be tolerant to get along in the world, but that doesn’t mean we must preserve and celebrate all aspects of other cultures. What about ritual sacrifice? cannibalism? female genital mutilation?

What is often termed as “culture,” “heritage,” and “tradition” are merely a set of beliefs and customs which were passed down through arbitrary chains of hierarchy, and shaped by long chains of causation (everything from memetics to geology).  None of that deserves any inherent respect just because it has the label of “heritage.”

Similarly, our genetic lottery doesn’t deserve any inherent respect, simply because it is termed “natural” or that it provides “neurodiversity.” We need to dig deeper to find the true basis upon which we can make moral claims. Ronald Bailey should do more homework.

I voted yes, it would be an interesting experiment.

On the basis of the plausible assumption that to exist is better than not to exist, I think this is also in the interest of our Neanderthal friends.

We should give them a good quality of life though, in a park with good temperature, planty to eat and many other Neanderthals to screw and be friend with.

No, because there are a lot of problems with cloning, and it would be needlessly cruel to clone humans. Even now with cloned animals, only a fraction of a percent reach adulthood, and many of those have serious health issues. It is a terrible, unethical idea that we should never seriously consider. Just because we are supposedly able to, doesn’t mean that we should bring a species back from the dead.

I vote “No.” First, I disagree there is a moral obligation to right a (purely speculative) wrong from 30,000 years ago. Let it go, folks. More seriously, I do think it is wrong to recreate a human species for what is essentially our own amusement.  Grow up in a lab? A reality show on TLC? Adopted by a tv producer? Come on. This is stunt cloning.

Hmm. This sounds like an excuse to exercise human cloning by the back door. I cannot see anything ethical about bringing a humanoid species back to life, especially on the lame grounds that we most likely destroyed them in the first place.

Let’s not delude ourselves, that the reasons for contemplating these things are merely human selfishness, and a lesson in arrogance and respect of our so called cousins is also apparent.
Seems like man is just “itching” to get his teeth into a “meaty” cloning project, and will use any excuse to make this possible.

This all kinda reeks of “Planet of the apes”? And superiority? And slavery? And Human pride? And the certainty of later prejudices and resentment?

@ Armand

Well done you have this spot on, and well presented it is!

I’m sorry, Cygnus, but “the reasons for contemplating these things are merely human selfishness, and a lesson in arrogance ” was not one of the choices.
“No, because that would be “playing God.” ” was.

Its already been done. They have been identified as “birthers” “deathers” and “teabaggers”.

@ Bryce..

Whilst you are correct, the “arrogance” of man’s attempt to play God is of great importance, and his attempts to play this out normally end in his downfall. My philosophical position regarding man and technoprogression and scientific discoveries and AGI, is that all these things will happen in their own good time, (due to the grace of God), and therefore we should not push it.

There is a whole philosophical discussion I could pour into here, regarding God, creation and man, and man’s pursuit of truth, and a spiritual, as well as a technological singularity : however, this is not the place for such a discussion.

Personally, I am not wholly against human cloning, (although I feel “man” is not yet ready to conclude the ethical arguments for and against this at this time).
However, I do feel it would be a far greater violation to attempt to clone this lower species, knowing full well that it could not compete with us as a sentient species, and that it would be thus ultimately cast out as inferior. Therefore the reasons for contemplating this are purely and entirely due to the selfish of man.

I guess the place to debate this dilemma is to begin on a personal level, and to investigate how I would feel, if I were cloned? And specifically, whether I would volunteer for such an exercise?
And I cannot say that I would be filled with any great disgust or resentment knowing there existed another replica of me : that is, as long as I did not have to live or put up with me for any great length of time! This would definitely lead to resentments!

The main point I feel, is that if we do clone a human, it should not be classed as anything less than a human, and should be treated with the same respect, and have the same rights as all other humans. This may seem obvious, and it is very easy to make this a realisation, when there are only one or two clones. Yet ask yourselves how you would feel if we began to clone hundreds or even thousands?

:0]

Cygnus, I guess you figured it out, but maybe someone else didn’t: I was just being facetious with my last comment, and not at your expense. (I felt the six choices given for answers weren’t enough.)

I think that most moral people, even based purely on these responses can understand the terribly unethical experiment this would be.  Going simply by the guidelines of ethics in psychology, it would never pass as ethical, so regardless of any rhetoric one scientist or another may come up with, this diabolical experiment shall never come to fruition, barring of course a rerun of hitler’s Germany, which by the way is the reason the board of ethics exsists today.

No, simply due to a contradiction of terms. If indeed the anthropological theories are correct (IMO they are not), i.e. evolution, then reanimating them would contradict the theories of evolution. For instance one could then say, they were indeed superior to our ancestors for they simply waited for our ancestors to evolve to a point where we could bring them back to life. Or you one could also argue that by bringing them back we cheated them of millions of years of potential evolution, a cruel joke indeed.

Do you actually believe they aren’t already trying to clone the “Neanderthals”?  Many believe Neanderthals were our ancestors before Noah’s flood.

Maybe they could sale insurance

Assumiing we did clone a “neder”, we would therefore be obligated to allow him to live to his/her full potential by breeding either with one of his own kind or one of us. I mean it would be a sin not to.  Think of the ramifications of that in a generation or two where we have a race of “beasts of the earth”.  This is prophesied in the bible as the rider of the pale horse has power to kill via these beasts.  Just what we need is another souless, bloodthirsty, mindless army. But we already have those. 

Naw, insurance salespeople is better.

No because their existence in a modern world would be untenable. Who knows what they would do to the human race or how they would think or react. Life now a days is extremely different from how the world functioned when they first lived. It would be confusing for the Neanderthals to live and wouldn’t be of their best interest. What is done is done, and we can and should not bring things back to life of the past. Everything has happened for a reason, whether or not a person believes in God.

Bringing back Neanderthals should be a top priority for the scientific community.  If we are to move forward as a species we must fully understand our past and if we migrate from this planet and encounter other sentient beings, we must know how to get along with people different from what we are used to.  Then there are possible advantages for immune response and disease fighting.  Bringing a new life into the world is a blessing. Bringing back a extinct species of life would be even better.

@Peter Earl :“If we are to move forward as a species we must fully understand our past”

We’ve been “moving forward” for thousands of years without any bringing back any dead species. And we don’t need to /fully/ understand our past to move forward.

“if we migrate from this planet and encounter other sentient beings, we must know how to get along with people different from what we are used to.”

So, we can fly to Peru, Chad, or Laos and get along with the folks there. Good enough practice in my book.

“Then there are possible advantages for immune response and disease fighting.”

And possible destruction of the Neanderthals’ immune system (like how the American Indians reportedly suffered from European diseases they weren’t used to.)  So, it’s a wash on this argument.

“Bringing a new life into the world is a blessing. Bringing back a extinct species of life would be even better. “

It would be neat, that’s for sure. Let’s bring back an extinct beetle, then.

veronica

We’ve been “moving forward” for thousands of years without any bringing back any dead species. And we don’t need to /fully/ understand our past to move forward.

Forget or ignore history at your own peril, and be doomed to repeat its mistakes. Knowledge is a good thing.

So, we can fly to Peru, Chad, or Laos and get along with the folks there. Good enough practice in my book.

Humans are humans for all the minor differences they are still the same species.  You missed the point of learning to communicate and get along with a different sentient species.

And possible destruction of the Neanderthals’ immune system (like how the American Indians reportedly suffered from European diseases they weren’t used to.) So, it’s a wash on this argument.

Yes the first clones may be effected but your idea to give up at the first hurdle does not win any prizes.  Nature tries again and again and we can too.

It would be neat, that’s for sure. Let’s bring back an extinct beetle, then.

Yes a beetle is exactly the same as a neanderthal. we can try to talk to them and see the differences between their bodies and ours and make huge advances in medicine and fill in many gaps in our knowledge….not.  Again you miss the point entirley.

We shouldn’t clone the Neanderthals to bring them back. They wouldn’t be able to adapt to the world again, it would be like the genocide that killed them all over again. THey were cannibals, and have no way of understanding us for their voice boxes aren’t advanced enough to speak english. If we do bring them back whats to stop us from bringing back other species like the dinosaurs? Life is dangerous enough worrying about geting hit by cars or mugged on the way home. Do you really want to worry about cannibals and dinosaurs too?

They could adapt with our help so it would not be genocide.  We have human cannibals still living in New Guinea.  Generally when a tribe is educated enough they stop that practice.  Neanderthals would be no different. Ensure their food supply is all it takes.  The latest evidence suggests that they did indeed have a voice box capable of speech.
There is nothing stopping us bringing back dinosaurs except a lack of DNA and a suitable host.  If Humans were to die out for one reason or another, dont you think it would be nice if whoever comes after us, brought us back for a second chance?  All things have a potential and we have not yet reached ours and I bet the Neanderthals didnt reach theirs either.

Interesting discussion, and a lot of good points.

Half of the world has been searching for other “intelligent life”, in hopes that they could learn from them, and half the world has been dreading that it would happen.  Just look at our sci-fi with some aliens as being portrayed as harmless friends, and others as ruthless conquerors. 

Unfortunately we don’t know the “intelligence” of these beings. 

If they have the natural intelligence of our greatest scientists, it would be the most wonderful experiment.

If they have the intelligence of a 4 yr old…  then we would be essentially creating the race of deltas and gammas that Aldus Huxley dreamed up.  And, since we no longer need Huxley’s elevator operators, they would soon find themselves in zoos and circuses. 

If cloned they would be born into the modern world…  and the first few should be educated like our own children.  And, I’m sure there would be thousands of volunteers to adopt a Neanderthal infant.  And, then based on intelligence and other things, they would be given a choice whether they would wish to live in modern comfort vs a “retro” environment.  Even perhaps dropping them off on an island to be left to their own devices.

It is interesting…  it is believed that the Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens had common ancestors.  The Neanderthals migrated to Europe prior to the Homo Sapiens.  Then, sometime after the arrival of the Homo Sapiens in Europe, they died out. 

It is likely that there would also have been groups of Neanderthals in Africa, or elsewhere that would also have diverged from human development, but also eventually died out or were slaughtered. 

Humans have also had a very strong history of racism, slavery, clan warfare, etc.  Looking at the strength of reaction of modern humans to other humans of different races, ethnic backgrounds, religions, languages, etc.  It isn’t hard to imagine the response that occurred when the first Homo Sapiens migrated to Europe and encountered the Neanderthals. 

Of course, we’ll probably never know what it was that wiped them out…  active warfare, human’s indifference to their plight, inability to adapt to environmental changes, or perhaps we simply brought the plague with us (much like was done when Europeans entered the Americas).

Personally, I wouldn’t see this as much as righting a wrong as actually encountering a different intelligent being on Earth.

Yes, we owe it to them since we killed them. And to Armand, if humans are going to have such racist thoughts toward Neanderthals, then we should definitely give up looking for aliens, because they would recieve the same kind of treatment. Yet people are not going to do that. Yes the neanderthals will probably have some problems, but there was a time when blacks were regarded as less than human, yet people learned. And although only a few could be cloned. if they are fertile, they would be able to breed. And I don’t consider it “playing God” because we are not actually creating anything, we are using materials that already exist. And people are speaking as if the cloned neanderthal would have all his memories from his previous life, but if they are raised as modern humans they will think as modern humans.

I suppose the reality is that if we do “clone” Neanderthals, there will be decisions that will necessarily be made that will impact the new “species”, and relations between our two species forever. 

For example, say you look at donkeys, horses, and zebras.  All 3 branches of the equine tree share pretty much the same genes.  But the genes are distributed on the chromosomes differently, and they even have different numbers of chromosomes.  In a sense it is amazing they can interbreed at all.  But, due to the different gene distribution and different numbers of chromosomes, they are unable to have stable meiosis for 2nd generation offspring.

With the Neanderthals, we may not have the technology to differentiate between chromosomes.  So, we would have a choice of mapping the Neanderthal genes onto human 23 pairs of chromosomes.  Versus giving them say 20 or 30 pairs of chromosomes.

This simple decision on the number of chromosomes and how the genes are mapped onto the chromosomes would have huge interspecies consequences. 

So, yes, it would be far more than just restoring the past, but would be adding our (the scientist’s) interpretations and ideals to the development of more or less an equivalent species, but with enough differences that it would actually be an entirely new species that has never before existed.

If we re-created their sub-genus and they attained the level of civilized “peoples” we may experience problems with cross-breeding of modern humans and the new Neanderthal population, thus creating hybrid offspring and this would have unforeseeable consequences in terms of human physiology and the evolution of our own species.

To much to risk to bring someone back. Especially if that someone has not gotten the chance to have ~30,000years of evolution as “Common_Tater” said.

“What is often termed as “culture,” “heritage,” and “tradition” are merely a set of beliefs and customs which were passed down through arbitrary chains of hierarchy, and shaped by long chains of causation (everything from memetics to geology).”

1= culture is reproduced not passed down. there is a big difference. moral values and world views shift as culture is reproduced.

2 =heritage is not merely a set of belief and customs which were passed down…it is that by definition.

3- you argue by reducing everything into inaccurate abstracts of real life. like highschool student, you are trying to by philosophical by guessing what philosophy is about
4- comparing Nazis to Neanderthals makes no sense at all.
One is an expression of hyper technocratic imperialism a product of history and an amoral world view that emerged with the development of anti-humanist philosophy (uhmm..not anti-human..i am sure you dont know the difference).
the other, the Neanderthal, is an extinct species of humanoids who’s culture/society/life is being studied and debated.
how you compare the two seems to show you know little and thus resort to comparing what you know..regardless, it is a laughable comparison.

again, the way you reduce things into abstract and then present them as comparable is so damn cliche even the half conscious stoner philosophy students are giggling like school girls.

pointdexter,

1) Agreed

2) I was emphasizing the arbitrariness, not the fact that they it is passed down. I was basically giving a reminder that what is traditional is not necessarily proper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

3) This is ad hominem and borders on anti-intellectualism. You write that “moral and world views shift as culture is reproduced” and yet expect me to be ashamed that I am being too reductive and abstract. Your statement is just as much of a generalization as any of mine. Generalizations can be useful in communicating an idea.

4) I did not compare Nazis to Neanderthals. I quoted David Pearce at length on the topic of preserving predatory animals. Furthermore, just because comparisons to Nazis are commonplace does not make any particular argument incorrect. Perhaps it was strategically sub-optimal to use that particular analogy, or perhaps not. In either event, you have not disproven the claim itself.

Why do we bring morals and bible quotations into this argument? We eliminate species in order to make our lives more comfortable (Hydroelectricity etc.). We accept collateral damage in military actions (unless it’s to our families). We brought Holocaust and transportation to native americans east of the Mississippi River. We gave biological weapons to Saddam Hussein. The list is endless…Why are we even having this discussion? Someone is going to do it… It’s just a matter of time…

Yes definitely we should do it! Our govn’t spends far more than that 30 mill on studying methane gas emitions from cow pastures… The only ethical/moral problem with this experiment would come from the belief that the neanderthals have souls, but if evolution is true than they don’t, so whats the problem?? I say they go ahead and spend 180 million and make 6 of them, let them breed… why not

“The only ethical/moral problem with this experiment would come from the belief that the neanderthals have souls, but if evolution is true than they don’t, so whats the problem??”

Huh?? What does their having a soul have anything to do with ethical and moral problems? After all, if evolution is true, then we humans don’t have souls either, but surely genetic engineering (of the nature intended for neanderthals) of humans has potential ethical and moral problems.

Why bother with silly old neanderthals, this idea is soooo last year !

Waking the Dead: Scientists Reconstruct Nuclear Genome of Extinct Human Being > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100210131948.htm

New ethical blog required Somebody hello?!!

In the Science Daily article, they have sequenced the genome….  But have not actually cloned the prehistoric person.

And, I suppose that will be more common in the future.

I assume we have adequate genetic samples for hundreds of popes and saints (well…  assuming the sacred relics aren’t bovine).  I believe there is also DNA samples from some famous scientists and perhaps even Hitler… 

Should we clone Einstein?  Hitler?  Various Popes (now that would be odd since the church now opposes cloning). 

Personally, I think I would oppose cloning prehistoric Homo Sapiens.  I don’t see a need to do it, unless there was a convincing argument to add their genetics to our existing gene pool.

As far as cloning Neanderthals, Mammoths, Dodo Birds, etc…  It would be a very interesting academic challenge.  But, the question remains what would happen to our “brothers and sisters”, the Neanderthals on this planet.  Of course, there would always be the option of just cloning “Adam”, and not cloning “Eve” (or visa-versa).

I agree with the Idea,

Leaving God and Fraudulent ideology of morality our of it.. The benefits outway the risks. We could gain so much insight into ourselves in this matter. We would have such an enormous opportunity to study the development of human evolution and intelligence and actually see first hand the intellectual capacity of this entity. Wow, what we could learn would be fabulous..think about the comparisson between the species and what we can see from one jump in evolution to the next. Since they are the closest to us it will conclusivley tell us the difference or where we were stronger/smarter..it would better allow us to view the differnces and where we evolved and maybe give us insights to the reasoning of our evolutionary change.. as far as human cloning it has already been done and done well as anyone who has followd cloning actually knows. So, we need to keep foolish religious sychophants out of science. If this is within our power to do so and the benfefits are present and they are we should do this. Also, if the non-sense of the beings quality life is in question, well that depends on the intellectual capability and ability to adapt or communicate.. as we support many intellectually challenged people and people with disabilities and recieve no benefit from them, to speak of..get past it..we already are doing it and one more will not harm anything or anyone. Developing in the present is vastly different than the past..so, the relevance comes in the rasing not the creating and demonstrating the rate of learning. Developmen from childhood to adult is enormous and instinctive tendencies..I just want to see this being and of course make sure they are happy and well cared for as guest should be.  what a stunner and a real world opportunity to the science of man as a species, undeniably the scariest and coolest project out there…

Harold writes: “The benefits outway (sic) the risks.”
Would you quantify that for us, please? Thanks.

Dear you,
  I find it utterly disgusting to clone a Neanderthaler.  What in the world can we learn from that? Absolutely nothing.
  I say only clone a person that is alive now, some of the few outstanding charismatic intelligent genius people alive today. Michael Jackson is cloned years ago,alive and growing up. Let us make various super peaceful passionate power people. Like those few that contribute to peace today. So that in 20-30 years we have more genius peace promoting fellows than now. They may infiltrate the present cabal of destructive forces in order to stop the idiotic slaughter that man to man calls war today.
  We have learned nothing from the past in the way towards peace. No, we have used technology to refine the absolute horrific ancient terror that men uses to intimidate, overtake, disown and further disrespect other men, calling it war. This psychopathic behavior must go from the agendas of the powers that be. Only when serious family planning education and a lowering of the world population has become a priority, [and how long from now] a reality, do we become humans that deserve the name. Until then we are fools digging into the past and wanting to bring it back to life. We should only take from what is the very best today to make a better tomorrow .
  Alex Baldal
  Captain Zen

  —
  better to rise than to fall in love
  thank you for not thinking
  http://www.atlantisring.com

I know I am chiming in way late on this matter, but I suppose I will put in my .02 cents anyways.  I don’t see a problem with cloning a neanderthal as long as we don’t treat it like a lab rat.  Part of what we take for granted as human beings is the love and care of our families and partners.  Who will this neanderthal have?  A group of scientists poking and prodding him or her?  Does that mean we should make two of them?  The water gets murky because of the issue of culture. It would be a neanderthal in a homosapien world.  Imagine how lonely that would feel.  The problem is in a way.. Playing God.  Can we be certain that we would have the compassion to do such a thing properly?  I don’t think we could.  I just wouldn’t feel comfortable introducing a neanderthal into our modern world, the psychological impact depending upon his or her reasoning skills could be over-kill.  To know you were made from a race or extinct human beings to be studied.. not pleasant.

There are plenty of people who has unique genetic mutation living among us. I think cloned Neanderthals will be almost like modern humans. Raised among modern humans, they will not be that different at all, and can make some great sportsman, like boxers, wrestling, weight lifters.

First off, Bailey is right the purpose of using technology is what matters not the technology itself is ethical or unethical.

Second, Neardertal might have genetically crossed themselves with human ancestors long ago and not actually erradicated by them, I’ve seen people with neandertal characteristics its not justification but just saying they might have not been gone afterall.

Lastly, like Oila said neandertals living under normal human conditions would be no different than us and probably be good at something I think would be great to clone and to try to understand our our origin through them, I think more good can come from them than bad.

I vote yes

YES do it.
this would be the greatest scientific achievement since landing on the moon.
people keep saying that the neanderthal will be confused and not know how to live in this day and age.
yes it will. because if they allegedly have similar or equivelant brains to us, then as they are growing they will be taught like us. its not like they can create an adult body of a neanderthal with all its ancient thoughts and processes already included and animate it today.
the clone will have to be grown from an infant, so this will give scientists every opportunity to see how they intellectually compare to homo sapiens, simply by placing the neanderthal in a school for every day children.
the difference in appearance shouldnt make much difference to children, especially not in a mixed race classroom, including asians, africans, australian aboriginals, anglo saxons descent. all of these races have extremely different body shapes and physical attributes, ranging from prominant brows, dark skin, sloping eyes, pale skin, height and muscular differences.
so im sure a neanderthal wouldnt be out of place.
lets give it a go. if all else fails and the neanderthal cant adapt to our way of life, create a closed reserve, put a handful of neanderthals in there and let them live their lives the way they want to.

If humans were extinct, would we prefer a future intelligent lifeform to bring us back?
All major religions agree on life after death for humans.

I absolutely would want humans to be ressurected.

So from that perspective, I believe neandertahls
would want the same.

And further, they should be raised in a human family with love,
And have all constitutional rights we have.

Personally I would love to meet one and be friends.

We interbred with them. We carry some of their genome. Humans haven’t evolved to the point where we are good stewards for the species currently existing now. So until we do evolve some compassion and learn to be good stewards, from a secular standpoint, it is unethical to engage in bioengineering at all. Not that anyone’s opinions matter, because corporations given government funds have already cloned everything they can, and even “spliced” together some interesting chimeras. Anyone thinking otherwise is exceedingly naive.

We allow people to have children with disabilities such as autism or down syndrome, yet this is not ‘unethical’.

A Neanderthal child will provide us with insight into our evolution, contributing more to science than 99% of the human population. There is no reason why a Neanderthal can’t be happy, with the appropriate support, in our society.

I try to look at both sides of the picture before I form an oppinion and before I say what I believe I want to aknowladge that those who believe there are to many issues are correct, there are and they all need to be adressed. Howevever I stand firm in saying we should revive the neanderthal species. There are innumerable implications and reasons for doing so. I may sound ignorant in some of what I say and that’s because I am. I’m only in highschool so some of what I say my not make sense or just be wrong. I believe it is an important and required inquirey to study our closest relative to see exactly what they were like with no need for sprculation and hypothesese. Its important to understand their intilectual capabilities and physical capabilities either making them more like us or preventing them from doing so. This in the prosses will also allow us to see how all of our habits and ways of living as human beings have affected our evolution. Regardless of implications it is important to resurect the species. We as a human species should want to ensure that we are not the last chance for our group of beings, because let’s face it. No matter how successful we have been and how advanced of a society we live in all things come to an end. I don’t know about you all, but I for one would like to know that when we overstay our welcome that there’s something out there with the human spark to carry it on. Genetic diversity is stressed when talking about the succesfulness of a species or even genus, and all humans are like what? 99.9 % the same? We need something else to carry it on. Nothing worth doing is ever easy nor without risk, and this is so benifitial in so many ways. I personaly would be honored and long to work on this project.

I think it would be a good idea but starting off with one first, they might think differently then us but can still be taught i mean nasa can train monkeys right and they may possibly be smarter furthering technology and conceded people saying the neanderthals are dumb people back then people where smarter then us with mostly everything, but we will never know will we because this world takes no chances but can take chances feeding us processed foods that aren’t real right.

YOUR COMMENT Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: IEET Readers’ Top Fear: Theocracy

Previous entry: New Rules for the Photoshop Era