Should we create a neanderthal?

i see what your saying, i didnt think about that. i just figured they would grow him in a tube. and now that i think of it they could just alter his genetics beforehand.

 

you should also add the strain of being the only one of his kind to your list if they only did this once. thatd be pretty devastating.

yeah, I mean I'll be honest, I think it is kind of unethical. But it'd be pretty damn cool.

lol, in all realness, they are probably creating one right now; we just won't ever know about it in our lifetimes.

i smell a new conspiracy brewing!

Sounds like a neat trick that wouldn't really accomplish much.

  On 1/31/2013 at 6:23 AM, Franklin said:

 

  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.

 

 

As I said, the implications are almost identical to considering doing the same with a homo sapiens. It would be considered unethical not for any practical reason but because in contemporary values we have constructed this thing called human rights.

 

It's dificult to argue 'giving reasons' about the ethical concerns about something like this because they are not based on pragmatical consequences but on empaty.

 

what is ethics anyway?

  On 2/1/2013 at 3:47 PM, GORDO said:

what is ethics anyway?

i think you asking that question at this point in the thread kind of illustrates something here. if this topic- cloning a neanderthal- if ethics were not applicable to it, shouldn't be brought in and are irrelevant, as some people seem to be implying, then WHAT is an example of something where the question of ethics DOES apply? the word ethics exists EXACTLY for this type of thing. the idea of weighing the quality of life of one against any possible benefits for society (of which i have not seen many with any real meat to them), that should be considered a prime example of a debate involving the concept of ethics. it should be be given in dictionaries, under 'ethics' as an example.

 

this question about cloning a neanderthal is exactly why the concept of ethics exists. its as pure an example as you could find. to suggest that ethics do not apply to this, is like suggesting that there is no such thing as ethics, and by extension, that nothing could be considered 'unethical'.

also- i'm wondering how many people across the world and especially in USA, are of the opinion that this would not be unethical (or who just haven't even considered the ethics of it), but are absolutely against any and all forms of torture (such as the kind that probably got the intel that led to osama bin laden's whereabouts) on ethical grounds, regardless of any positive benefits (such as saving lives). i'm only saying this because i'm sure that there are some (plenty) out there.

it could be dangerous.... for us. they are also already living amongst us.

 

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?s=fc1094d6f8f22cbff359f3e0252a1e8d&t=198293

Edited February 4, 2013 by dese manz hatin

there has been talk among evolutionary biologists about the question of if there were no primates on this planet, what order of animals might grow able to occupy the conscious niche, and interestingly raccoons are candidates. raccoons have well-positioned eyes, they have a very complex hand, and are quite inquisitive. i recall that terence mckenna once told a story of how, when he used to grow mushrooms using jars filled with mycelium-permeated rye, he one night put the jars out on his back porch, and was later awoken in the middle of the night to this terrific racket. sure enough, it was the raccoons... they could smell the rye infested with the psilocybin-containing mycelium, and they could unscrew the lids, they plunged their mitts into the stuff, and had a field day with it. and upon turning on the lights he witnessed these little bandit faces with these mycelial crumbs on their little upturned muzzles, and they would not back off... not to mention they were standing up on their hind legs. so they were standing bi-pedal, with a jar in one hand and waste rye in the other, tottering towards him... lol

 

he just said he took one look and backed off...and that for the rest of the evening could hear what sounded like the raccoons approaching the orgiastic boundary, whatever that means... a symphony of squeaking, squealing, thumping, and pounding.

 

 

just thought i'd mention that because the thread title reminded me of it

  On 2/4/2013 at 4:00 AM, impotentwhitecapitalist said:

there has been talk among evolutionary biologists about the question of if there were no primates on this planet, what order of animals might grow able to occupy the conscious niche, and interestingly raccoons are candidates. raccoons have well-positioned eyes, they have a very complex hand, and are quite inquisitive. i recall that terence mckenna once told a story of how, when he used to grow mushrooms using jars filled with mycelium-permeated rye, he one night put the jars out on his back porch, and was later awoken in the middle of the night to this terrific racket. sure enough, it was the raccoons... they could smell the rye infested with the psilocybin-containing mycelium, and they could unscrew the lids, they plunged their mitts into the stuff, and had a field day with it. and upon turning on the lights he witnessed these little bandit faces with these mycelial crumbs on their little upturned muzzles, and they would not back off... not to mention they were standing up on their hind legs. so they were standing bi-pedal, with a jar in one hand and waste rye in the other, tottering towards him... lol

 

he just said he took one look and backed off...and that for the rest of the evening could hear what sounded like the raccoons approaching the orgiastic boundary, whatever that means... a symphony of squeaking, squealing, thumping, and pounding.

 

 

just thought i'd mention that because the thread title reminded me of it

  On 1/27/2013 at 4:31 AM, lumpenprol said:

two good lols in a row

 

btw apparently europeans have 4% Neanderthal DNA while blacks have next to none. Let the racism commence...

 

Are you just fucking around, or did you read that somewhere?

It's "true", did you read the article?

 

  Quote

 

Up to 4 per cent of the DNA of every living person of non-African descent can be traced back to them, according to researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, who analysed the genes of nearly 2,000 people worldwide.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2266108/Neanderthal-man-DNA-experiments-shadow-Dr-Frankenstein.html#ixzz2JyukPn00

 

 

My understanding is this “fact” (putting it in quotes just to underscore that I have no stake in whether or not its
true) has been used by people with an agenda to argue that it proves blacks are inferior to whites. For all I know there might be some truth to this, in the aggregate sense – average IQs or aggressiveness or something – but it’s social suicide (and completely pointless) to explore the subject from that angle. In all likelihood it’s just an evolutionary curiosity, like being a redhead, that has no bearing on anything really. Still, 4% is a surprising amount.

Edited February 5, 2013 by lumpenprol

it would be pretty cool if it was a female ! if it's a boy i wonder if they'll circumcise him..

  On 1/27/2013 at 2:52 PM, eugene said:

 

  Quote

 

Should we create a neanderthal?

yeah, do it, fuck it.

this is the correct answer

 

edit: especially relevant concerning the above comment

Edited February 5, 2013 by KY

  On 2/5/2013 at 1:58 AM, lumpenprol said:

It's "true", did you read the article?

 

  Quote

 

Up to 4 per cent of the DNA of every living person of non-African descent can be traced back to them, according to researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, who analysed the genes of nearly 2,000 people worldwide.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2266108/Neanderthal-man-DNA-experiments-shadow-Dr-Frankenstein.html#ixzz2JyukPn00

 

 

My understanding is this “fact” (putting it in quotes just to underscore that I have no stake in whether or not its

true) has been used by people with an agenda to argue that it proves blacks are inferior to whites. For all I know there might be some truth to this, in the aggregate sense – average IQs or aggressiveness or something – but it’s social suicide (and completely pointless) to explore the subject from that angle. In all likelihood it’s just an evolutionary curiosity, like being a redhead, that has no bearing on anything really. Still, 4% is a surprising amount.

 

The wording on that is kind of funny, since every human is of African descent...

 

National Geographic has a documentary up on Netflix about their genographic project. It's pretty interesting. Doesn't say anything about humans and neanderthals crossbreeding, though.

I think it's pretty new science. Do a google search for some new articles, it's really quite interesting. The picture of our "evolution from Africa" as you say, is a lot more complex than we first thought.

  On 2/5/2013 at 3:57 AM, Braintree said:

 

  On 2/5/2013 at 1:58 AM, lumpenprol said:

It's "true", did you read the article?

 

  Quote

 

Up to 4 per cent of the DNA of every living person of non-African descent can be traced back to them, according to researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, who analysed the genes of nearly 2,000 people worldwide.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2266108/Neanderthal-man-DNA-experiments-shadow-Dr-Frankenstein.html#ixzz2JyukPn00

 

 

My understanding is this “fact” (putting it in quotes just to underscore that I have no stake in whether or not its

true) has been used by people with an agenda to argue that it proves blacks are inferior to whites. For all I know there might be some truth to this, in the aggregate sense – average IQs or aggressiveness or something – but it’s social suicide (and completely pointless) to explore the subject from that angle. In all likelihood it’s just an evolutionary curiosity, like being a redhead, that has no bearing on anything really. Still, 4% is a surprising amount.

 

The wording on that is kind of funny, since every human is of African descent...

 

National Geographic has a documentary up on Netflix about their genographic project. It's pretty interesting. Doesn't say anything about humans and neanderthals crossbreeding, though.

 

 

wtf? couldn't you just as easily spin it the other way? as in, whites intermixed with the older humans, whereas Africans maintained "purity" or some stupid shit?

 

fuck I can't believe I'm even trying to talk racist pseudo-science.

You absolutely could.

 

I don't think anyone here is talking pseudoscience. It's incredible how discussing "the science of race" is such a third rail. Instant electrocution.

 

Look, if they did some study that concluded that Asians on average have higher IQs than whites, and then found some interesting evolutionary support for why this might be the case, would I get all angry and bent out of shape and cry racism? Not unless I really had good reason to believe the science was bogus, and even then I'd probably shrug and go "whatever".

 

It's funny because, no matter what, we will all still have equal rights before the law, and the differences in aptitude between individuals will always be *much* greater than any real or imagined difference between races. So everyone needs to just chill out.

 

Anyhoo, /race talk, I'll certainly agree it's a dead end conversation. I'm going back to watching some porn with unusually well-endowed black males.

  On 2/5/2013 at 4:32 AM, lumpenprol said:

You absolutely could.

 

I don't think anyone here is talking pseudoscience. It's incredible how discussing "the science of race" is such a third rail. Instant electrocution.

 

Look, if they did some study that concluded that Asians on average have higher IQs than whites, and then found some interesting evolutionary support for why this might be the case, would I get all angry and bent out of shape and cry racism? Not unless I really had good reason to believe the science was bogus, and even then I'd probably shrug and go "whatever".

 

It's funny because, no matter what, we will all still have equal rights before the law, and the differences in aptitude between individuals will always be *much* greater than any real or imagined difference between races. So everyone needs to just chill out.

 

Anyhoo, /race talk, I'll certainly agree it's a dead end conversation. I'm going back to watching some porn with unusually well-endowed black males.

 

 

oh no, sorry for the misunderstanding, i wasn't angry at you....just that I could see what you are saying as a legitimate system of belief in either racial supremacy movement...and its absolutely infuriating.

 

and "equal rights before the law" as it is written.....but the practice of it is something very, very different, at least in the United States. But that's another matter.

yeah, you did hit the nail on the head - any science that investigates these sorts of interesting questions about where we came from eventually gets co-opted by someone who then makes gross overgeneralizations based on it.

 

As you say you could easily claim the inverse. The black power movement could use white's 4% Neanderthal DNA as proof that we are more evil and that Dr. Yakub created us, lol.

I posted a link from Scientific American re: this Neanderthal + human interbreeding on page two. Here it is again: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=neandertal-genome-study-r

 

It sheds light on the evolution of human beings, and it's incredibly interesting to boot.

 

  On 2/5/2013 at 3:57 AM, Braintree said:

 

  On 2/5/2013 at 1:58 AM, lumpenprol said:

It's "true", did you read the article?

 

  Quote

 

Up to 4 per cent of the DNA of every living person of non-African descent can be traced back to them, according to researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, who analysed the genes of nearly 2,000 people worldwide.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2266108/Neanderthal-man-DNA-experiments-shadow-Dr-Frankenstein.html#ixzz2JyukPn00

 

 

My understanding is this “fact” (putting it in quotes just to underscore that I have no stake in whether or not its
true) has been used by people with an agenda to argue that it proves blacks are inferior to whites. For all I know there might be some truth to this, in the aggregate sense – average IQs or aggressiveness or something – but it’s social suicide (and completely pointless) to explore the subject from that angle. In all likelihood it’s just an evolutionary curiosity, like being a redhead, that has no bearing on anything really. Still, 4% is a surprising amount.

 

The wording on that is kind of funny, since every human is of African descent...

 

True, we're all Africans in that sense -- the article is stating that those early humans that migrated out of Africa and then proliferated were the ones who mixed with Neanderthals. Those people who did not make the journey up North some many thousands of years ago -- they did not mix.

 

Nothing racially charged about this. There are indeed genetic differences between races, and it doesn't really make sense to ignore them in pursuit of political correctness. They shed light on our evolutionary history as a species. It's worth understanding.

 

This post is not directed at anyone in particular, btw

Edited February 5, 2013 by luke viia

agree wholeheartedly

 

There's actually some interesting-seeming science about the group that ended up becoming "Asians" (I'm sure I could be more precise with my language) but I can't find the link at the moment.

post it if you find it!