Should we create a neanderthal?

modern man and caveman = ? alien?

for some reason i can't stop looking at that pic of pauly shore...just like, wtf was that guy?

  On 1/29/2013 at 6:31 AM, Alcofribas said:

for some reason i can't stop looking at that pic of pauly shore...just like, wtf was that guy?

... a californian

  On 1/29/2013 at 1:22 AM, MisterE said:

i think, instead, these scientist people should focus on making a monstrous human centipede body with plenty of arms and legs (no ass to mouth just one big body), and multiple eyes and all the tools i would need to survive forever after they put my brain inside it. lets do this.

 

and under tools that includes a usb port so i can interface and hack stuff like R2.

 

 

some of the arms and legs, and the skeleton, should be metal too. just this badass human cyborg centipede.

  On 1/28/2013 at 11:36 PM, dese manz hatin said:

btw, how do creationists explain neanderthals? I get how they deal with apes, i.e. they exist but no evolutionary connection to us. but what about the intermediate stages?

Neanderthals were just one of the beginning stages to what is the modern day human. Evolution is a fact, we have proof. Humans did evolve but humans evolving from apes is only a theory (no proof. i.e.The Missing Link). both evolution and creationism can coexist. hence Christan Scientists, which i am one. i believe in both things. so thats how i would explain it.

IRL Quest for Fire Plz

  On 1/29/2013 at 7:24 PM, Frankie5fingers said:

 

  On 1/28/2013 at 11:36 PM, dese manz hatin said:

 

btw, how do creationists explain neanderthals? I get how they deal with apes, i.e. they exist but no evolutionary connection to us. but what about the intermediate stages?

Neanderthals were just one of the beginning stages to what is the modern day human. Evolution is a fact, we have proof. Humans did evolve but humans evolving from apes is only a theory (no proof. i.e.The Missing Link). both evolution and creationism can coexist. hence Christan Scientists, which i am one. i believe in both things. so thats how i would explain it.

as a future aerospace engineer, you should know better than to conflate the words theory and hypothesis. for shame.

and the hardcore creationists? surely they don't believe god made adam a neanderthal?

  On 1/29/2013 at 6:31 AM, Alcofribas said:

for some reason i can't stop looking at that pic of pauly shore...just like, wtf was that guy?

i know...lol

I think the important question in this case is: Why not?

If something is possible it should be done. What's the worst thing that could happen?

So many questions?

  On 1/29/2013 at 11:57 PM, Friendly Foil said:

I think the important question in this case is: Why not?

 

If something is possible it should be done. What's the worst thing that could happen?

 

So many questions?

i like this idea...

  On 1/29/2013 at 11:57 PM, Friendly Foil said:

I think the important question in this case is: Why not?

 

If something is possible it should be done. What's the worst thing that could happen?

 

So many questions?

fucking up a human being's entire life

Maybe just to prove a point against religious nuts

  On 1/30/2013 at 1:38 AM, GORDO said:

Maybe just to prove a point against religious nuts

Good enough for me. Bring on the Bok Bok!

  On 1/29/2013 at 8:27 PM, Hoodie said:

 

  On 1/29/2013 at 7:24 PM, Frankie5fingers said:

 

  On 1/28/2013 at 11:36 PM, dese manz hatin said:

 

btw, how do creationists explain neanderthals? I get how they deal with apes, i.e. they exist but no evolutionary connection to us. but what about the intermediate stages?

Neanderthals were just one of the beginning stages to what is the modern day human. Evolution is a fact, we have proof. Humans did evolve but humans evolving from apes is only a theory (no proof. i.e.The Missing Link). both evolution and creationism can coexist. hence Christan Scientists, which i am one. i believe in both things. so thats how i would explain it.

as a future aerospace engineer, you should know better than to conflate the words theory and hypothesis. for shame.

lol. touche. though i never said i was good at science.

  On 1/29/2013 at 11:47 PM, dese manz hatin said:

and the hardcore creationists? surely they don't believe god made adam a neanderthal?

theyre the overly sensitive, intolerant bible thumpers that only accept what the church has spoon fed them since the middle ages. most likely theyll say that the government put them there or something along the lines of that. all they like to do is turn a blind eye to the proof cause they have it in their head that it proves God wrong. which it doesnt. it just proves that weve been here for a little longer than we thought. or more accurately, a lot longer than we thought.

  On 1/30/2013 at 12:09 AM, yek said:

 

  On 1/29/2013 at 11:57 PM, Friendly Foil said:

I think the important question in this case is: Why not?

 

If something is possible it should be done. What's the worst thing that could happen?

 

So many questions?

i like this idea...

um

surely there are things you can do that would be better off left undone

use your imagination

  On 1/30/2013 at 4:52 AM, luke viia said:

 

  On 1/30/2013 at 12:09 AM, yek said:

 

  On 1/29/2013 at 11:57 PM, Friendly Foil said:

I think the important question in this case is: Why not?

 

If something is possible it should be done. What's the worst thing that could happen?

 

So many questions?

i like this idea...

 

 

um

 

surely there are things you can do that would be better off left undone

 

use your imagination

threads like this are sometimes so depressing.

My major question to people against this idea is Why do you assume that this would be unethical? It seems to be wrapped up in this idea that his/her/their lives would be worse than ours or maybe not worth living. Why make this assumption? What would you say to an argument suggesting that not bringing back a species that could potentially flourish again (and possibly help us flourish) would be unethical?

I think in the background of the unethical arguments there is this worry that playing God is naughty or forbidden; or that we ought not to mess with nature as there was or were particular (necessary) reasons for their species' departure.

To those people I suggest you study the Burgess shale or other places that are examples of mass extinctions. We're just a damn species on this planet people. Something could change and wipe us all out like 99.9% of all the species before us. As we have examples of for several different mass extinctions. I think we may have an ethical obligation to ourselves as a species to explore whether this species could potentially flourish in our current environment as well as explore whether or not this might complicate the relationship current species have with each other and have with this planet.

To avoid unnecessary stigma, we'll need to refer to them as 'hairy people'.

I'd say it'd be ammoral.

  On 1/30/2013 at 5:21 AM, Franklin said:

threads like this are sometimes so depressing.

 

My major question to people against this idea is Why do you assume that this would be unethical? It seems to be wrapped up in this idea that his/her/their lives would be worse than ours or maybe not worth living. Why make this assumption? What would you say to an argument suggesting that not bringing back a species that could potentially flourish again (and possibly help us flourish) would be unethical?

 

I think in the background of the unethical arguments there is this worry that playing God is naughty or forbidden; or that we ought not to mess with nature as there was or were particular (necessary) reasons for their species' departure.

 

To those people I suggest you study the Burgess shale or other places that are examples of mass extinctions. We're just a damn species on this planet people. Something could change and wipe us all out like 99.9% of all the species before us. As we have examples of for several different mass extinctions. I think we may have an ethical obligation to ourselves as a species to explore whether this species could potentially flourish in our current environment as well as explore whether or not this might complicate the relationship current species have with each other and have with this planet.

Dunno, seems obvious to me that the ethicals concerns about this are the same as if one were to create a human beign for the only purpose of being studied, and the obvious implications of having it confined.

even if we did do it the dude would probably die in 2 or 3 days from all the horrible bacteria, viruses, and other shit in our atmosphere that wasnt there during his time. we'd have to keep him in a sterile environment his entire life. that doesnt sound very enjoyable to me. honestly though, i couldnt care less whether or not we do it. its not like we'd learn anything significant from him being alive.

and as for repopulating an extinct species, i say no. they're extinct for a reason and screwing with that is never a good idea. i mean, i still have never heard of a story where even just relocating a species was a good idea. reintroducing something that has been gone for tens-of-thousands of years is just another bad idea.

  On 1/30/2013 at 5:21 AM, Franklin said:

threads like this are sometimes so depressing.

 

My major question to people against this idea is Why do you assume that this would be unethical? It seems to be wrapped up in this idea that his/her/their lives would be worse than ours or maybe not worth living. Why make this assumption? What would you say to an argument suggesting that not bringing back a species that could potentially flourish again (and possibly help us flourish) would be unethical?

 

I think in the background of the unethical arguments there is this worry that playing God is naughty or forbidden; or that we ought not to mess with nature as there was or were particular (necessary) reasons for their species' departure.

 

To those people I suggest you study the Burgess shale or other places that are examples of mass extinctions. We're just a damn species on this planet people. Something could change and wipe us all out like 99.9% of all the species before us. As we have examples of for several different mass extinctions. I think we may have an ethical obligation to ourselves as a species to explore whether this species could potentially flourish in our current environment as well as explore whether or not this might complicate the relationship current species have with each other and have with this planet.

my problem with what you just said here is that you start out by saying you get depressed with people assuming it is unethical, but then the last sentence has you taking that acknowledging that it may be. basically you're saying that the possible ethics need to be weighed with the possible benefits, which is fair enough, but its almost like you start out by saying you don't want there to be any debate on topics such as this, that everyone should just bow down to one side (yours) of the argument. you can criticize or debate someone's supposition that it's unethical, fair enough. but why just make the statement that their voicing that opinion is depressing to you, right at the start of your comment, putting it central to your view of the whole thing? from your comment and the way it's organized, i take the idea that you don't like debate on things that most people seem to agree are hot button topics related to science. do you think people should just go along with whatever the scientists say in all cases, or what?

seems to me like everyone should want MORE rigorous debate on things that are important to the world. also seems like a lot of people really really want LESS, for whatever reason (the reason is that they want to be 'right' and not have to defend their position). why can't you just give the point you made at the end of your comment, that there may be possible good reasons for doing this, and just lay that out there for people to consider?

so my question to you is, why do you not want people who are on one side of this to enter their opinions regarding ethics into the field of debate, while thinking that it's perfectly ok for you to enter your points into the discussion at the same time? a lot of, if not most of the people who are calling it unethical are giving specific reasons why (they aren't just assuming, they are thinking about it). none of which have you contested...

  On 1/30/2013 at 9:28 PM, MisterE said:

 

  On 1/30/2013 at 5:21 AM, Franklin said:

threads like this are sometimes so depressing.

 

My major question to people against this idea is Why do you assume that this would be unethical? It seems to be wrapped up in this idea that his/her/their lives would be worse than ours or maybe not worth living. Why make this assumption? What would you say to an argument suggesting that not bringing back a species that could potentially flourish again (and possibly help us flourish) would be unethical?

 

I think in the background of the unethical arguments there is this worry that playing God is naughty or forbidden; or that we ought not to mess with nature as there was or were particular (necessary) reasons for their species' departure.

 

To those people I suggest you study the Burgess shale or other places that are examples of mass extinctions. We're just a damn species on this planet people. Something could change and wipe us all out like 99.9% of all the species before us. As we have examples of for several different mass extinctions. I think we may have an ethical obligation to ourselves as a species to explore whether this species could potentially flourish in our current environment as well as explore whether or not this might complicate the relationship current species have with each other and have with this planet.

my problem with what you just said here is that you start out by saying you get depressed with people assuming it is unethical, but then the last sentence has you taking that acknowledging that it may be. basically you're saying that the possible ethics need to be weighed with the possible benefits, which is fair enough, but its almost like you start out by saying you don't want there to be any debate on topics such as this, that everyone should just bow down to one side (yours) of the argument. you can criticize or debate someone's supposition that it's unethical, fair enough. but why just make the statement that their voicing that opinion is depressing to you, right at the start of your comment, putting it central to your view of the whole thing? from your comment and the way it's organized, i take the idea that you don't like debate on things that most people seem to agree are hot button topics related to science. do you think people should just go along with whatever the scientists say in all cases, or what?

 

seems to me like everyone should want MORE rigorous debate on things that are important to the world. also seems like a lot of people really really want LESS, for whatever reason (the reason is that they want to be 'right' and not have to defend their position). why can't you just give the point you made at the end of your comment, that there may be possible good reasons for doing this, and just lay that out there for people to consider?

 

so my question to you is, why do you not want people who are on one side of this to enter their opinions regarding ethics into the field of debate, while thinking that it's perfectly ok for you to enter your points into the discussion at the same time? a lot of, if not most of the people who are calling it unethical are giving specific reasons why (they aren't just assuming, they are thinking about it). none of which have you contested...

What I find depressing is the lack of reasons given by the "it's unethical" ppl for thinking about pursuing these types of things.

  On 1/30/2013 at 8:09 PM, Frankie5fingers said:

even if we did do it the dude would probably die in 2 or 3 days from all the horrible bacteria, viruses, and other shit in our atmosphere that wasnt there during his time.

epic fail. Now would be "his time". Resistance comes from the parents, not from genes (mostly). Just have a normal human mom breastfeed him/her, and it should be fine. Keep in mind that Neanderthals could apparently interbreed with homo sapiens. So they're basically the same as us, or at least, very very close (as much as we might like to, we can't fuck chimps and have half human half chimp babies...believe me I've tried).

You don't have to confine him or subject him to cruel experiments. Just raise him, and have him do some standardized tests once in a while. No biggie.

The "ethical dilemma" parts of this, as far as I'm concerned, are:

- s/he would basically be adopted, so you'd have the mental strain of that, of not having a "real mom and dad".

- would be an international celebrity, so you'd have the mental strain of that

- what if your gene technique was flawed and s/he ended up malformed or fucked up in some way? That's the biggest hurdle imo. It's the very reason we experiment on animals, not humans. So that would be an inherent risk, the fact that the technology is unproven.

I think the biggest "benefit" of it all is that it's adding another species like us. Anything that adds to the diversity of planet earth is pretty cool imo.