Should We Clone a Neanderthal?

SpaceAdmiral writes "Forget cloning a woolly mammoth — should scientists clone a Neanderthal? Such a feat should be possible soon, although it raises a number of bioethics concerns, including where to draw the line between humans and other animals."

Comments

Yes, because they would make

[Anonymous Coward]

great hockey players!

Re:Yes, because they would make

[l-ascorbic]

Better still, croquet players.

Re:Yes, because they would make

[Pharmboy]

Except that Neanderthals are classified as either Homo sapiens neanderthalensis or Homo neanderthalensis, so they are either a "type" of human being, homo sapiens, or a cousin, but still "homo", meaning "human". I think they would be covered by human rights. Granted, that wouldn't stop some from trying.

Yes

[QuantumG]

Cause then it would no longer be socially acceptable for women to call us that anymore.

Re:Yes

[internetcommie]

What if it turns out they are just like us?

Re:Yes

[QuantumG]

The jokes are funnier if I don't have to explain them.

Re:Yes

[eclectro]

Cause then it would no longer be socially acceptable for women to call us that anymore.

That wouldn't matter. The Neanderthals being the new "hot" in town would steal everyone's girlfriends. They would even be making movies out of it, probably calling it something like "dusk."

I have an ethical problem with that.

Re:Yes

[Narcocide]

What if its worse? What if they're smarter?

Re:Yes

[Cow Jones]

What if it turns out they are just like us?

I wouldn't worry about that too much. At this very moment, there are several millions of Neanderthals among us, both male and female.

CJ

Re:Yes

[Metasquares]

Then they would be the ones cloning us.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

The next issue is, are they similar enough to reproduce with us, and give fertile offspring. That's a huge issue nobody would want to touch.

Given the boyfriends my ex has been through in the past couple of years, I think nobody might be a bit strong.

Re:Yes

[Shikaku]

I for one welcome our previously extinct smarter overlords.

Re:Yes

[Warll]

Put me in a room with a bear, repeat a hundred times and see who comes out on top. Doesn't mean the bear is smarter.

Re:Yes

[Count Fenring]

(I can't believe I'm sinking to this level)

It also might depend on just how huge that issue really is. Wink, nudge.

I am speaking of penises .

Re:Yes

[fractoid]

Put a hundred of you and a hundred bears on an island and see who comes out on top. A larger world with more options means more opportunity for intelligence to provide an advantage.

Chances are that the hundred of you would be working in packs with primitive weapons to wipe out the bears within a week.

Re:Yes

[bigjarom]

Shorter, but yes, bigger. They also had larger brains. What they didn't have though was a larger frontal cortex. i.e. they were very likely not as 'smart' as homo sapiens.

Re:Yes

[Count Fenring]

Exactly. Which is why parent's bear analogy doesn't work.

The other reason being that survival of a species is a hugely complex thing, with many potential factors. I remember reading one thing (although it may have been science fiction) suggesting that our ability to lock our knees is what let us survive while the neanderthals died.

Re:Yes

[TheThiefMaster]

Put me in a room with a bear, repeat a hundred times and see who comes out on top. Doesn't mean the bear is smarter.

That depends. Do you get a shotgun?

Re:Yes

[pe1rxq]

No, they would probably stop trying to explain it to you....
I think its a safe bet that the neanderthal picks up on it before you do....

Re:Yes

[daveewart]

Put me in a room with a bear, repeat a hundred times and see who comes out on top. Doesn't mean the bear is smarter.

I think it might mean that, actually. You just said "Put me in a room with a bear". Well, duh... you're clearly not that smart.

Re:Yes

[rent]

If you were smarter then you would not go in to a room with a bear

Re:Yes

[WindBourne]

Instead of people putting on a wizard's hat and making claim to special knowledge about the supposed ethics of a situation perhaps it would be saner to only consider what benefits an action might yield. I suspect that having a couple of living Neanderthals just might yield a great deal of scientific and medical information that would be highly useful to us all.
Interesting. You know, that same argument gets used all through history. In fact, it is the same argument that was used by Germans in WWII. And the truth is, that it DID yield MANY useful items. Much of our surgical tech. CAME from those experiments. Our knowledge of a number of diseases certainly came from there. Later Americans gained all sorts of useful knowledge by performing experiments on living humans, such as we learned a lot about syphilis in the 50s.

But I think that we should round up all the illegal aliens, Al Qaeda terrorists and neo-cons (all have been shown to be disastrous to America) and start a new round of medical experiments.

Or is there some objection via ethics and morals?

Re:Yes

[aussie_a]

I love how calling Bush a monkey because of his physical appearance is okay. But if you do it to Obama because of his physical appearance you get called a racist.

Re:Yes

[sharkman67]

Don't forget to add lawyers. I don't think there is anything immoral about doing medical experiments on attorneys.

Re:Yes

[NiteShaed]

There's no way they were smarter and bigger then us and still managed to be defeated by us. So either they faced a danger we didn't, or they weren't as smart as us.

Or they just didn't breed as quickly as we do, or were for some reason less agressive. I'm bigger and smarter than an africanized bee, but I don't necessarily want to run up to one of their hives and start kicking it.

Being bigger and smarter doesn't guarantee success, it just gives a potential advantage.

Re:Yes

[jollyreaper]

That wouldn't matter. The Neanderthals being the new "hot" in town would steal everyone's girlfriends. They would even be making movies out of it, probably calling it something like "dusk."

Our only solace is that the Geico commercials will really piss them off.

Re:Yes

[MBGMorden]

At a recent seminar on the event I also found out an interesting fact: most estimates put the average daily caloric intake necessary for a neanderthal at around 7000. Cromagnum man (ie, us) can get along quite fine with 2000.

As such, a large part of it may have simply been food shortages. Even if you're bigger (or even smarter), if there's simply not enough food available to keep you alive, then you'll die out. Rather than strength or smarts it may have simply come down to efficiency.

Re:Yes

[Psmylie]

The problem with that is the fact that calling black people "monkeys" is something that bigots have been doing for a good few generations. It's slightly different, don't you think?

There's no pre-existing racial slur to calling a white person a monkey, therefore it is safe to assume that the white person in question actually resembles a monkey. Calling a black person a monkey... well, maybe you mean he resembles a monkey, and maybe you are using a racial slur.

Also, a few idiots blaming the wrong people and threatening/committing violence does not equal "the Left". It equals a few idiots.

If you believe that a few nutballs represents the entire Left, then you have to believe that every idiot who does reprehensible things on the Right actually represents everyone on the Right.

I agree, though, the rules should apply to everyone. Everyone deserves to be treated with basic respect, in my opinion.

Re:Yes

[Weedlekin]

"As such, a large part of it may have simply been food shortages"

Even without food shortages, the fact that we could support four times as many people from the same resources would mean that we'd rapidly end up out-competing them through sheer weight of numbers.

Re:Yes

[Nevyn]

As an example, behold the behavior of leftist and activist Gays in California over the Prop 8 dispute. Despite the fact that Mormons make up less than 3% of the CA voting bloc that voted Prop 8 in, and Blacks and Latinos voted FOR Prop 8 in overwhelming numbers, the gays are ONLY targeting the Mormons.

The Mormon church provided millions of dollars to help swing the vote, which is generally what "the gays" are upset about ... although "targeting" is a unique way of putting it. Probably reading some right wing news sources, like the new york times, would help you out.

They are threatening to burn down churches, have sent white powder-filled envelopes to LDS headquarters, and have already attacked and beaten both Mormons, and elderly people.

But then this goes way past half-truths and misinformation ... stop listening to Fox News, it makes you look like an idiot.

Re:Yes

[Yogs]

Aha, sure.

Intelligence is one thing, relevant skills is another.

When was the last time you hunted in pack on foot, or fashioned, thrust, or threw a spear? What about starting a fire without a match? There's more than a bit of learning and physical conditioning necessary to be a successful "primitive".

These things time to develop, and it doesn't sound like the life expectancy on bear island is long enough.

Re:Yes

[Ambitwistor]

Much of our surgical tech. CAME from those experiments.

Hardly. Almost all of the Nazi medical experiments were surgically useless. AFAIK, they didn't invent any new surgical techniques. They did learn a few things about how long humans can survive under extreme conditions, but that's about it, and it didn't even lead to much in the way of new treatments. I think hypothermia may have been an exception. Most of their experimentation was just sadism of little medical or scientific value, and a lot of it was biased to "prove" various Nazi racial theories.

Our knowledge of a number of diseases certainly came from there.

Again, not really. They experimented with drugs/cures for various diseases. They didn't discover any new diseases, didn't discover anything about how the diseases work inside the body, and as far as I know, didn't lead to cures for any major disease.

Re:Yes

[The Real Andrew]

Now thats a reality show I would watch

Re:Yes

[penguin_dance]

Actually there's another argument. First off, Neanderthals had larger brains than us...just because they died out didn't mean they were stupid. There's even proof that they could have used a form of spoken language. There could be a lot of things, weather, disease, famine, etc. They were also stronger. Neanderthals generally hunted in enclosed, wooded areas where they would attack prey in close proximity. The lack of spears or other tools may be explained by the area they hunted. You can't throw a spear in a heavy woods. Or their build may not be suited to throw something like a spear accurately.

Then there's the theory that they didn't totally die off, but interbred with early modern man. And there's been no evidence I've seen that says their DNA was incompatible with ours or they would have produced a "mule."

And where did you get the idea that their body was "designed for the ice age." They had no better protection from the cold that we do. Here's one theory that where it's believed they couldn't adapt their clothing to something that would help them survive the cold.

I think it will come down to a multiple of problems, no one thing wiped out the Neanderthal and I'm one who does believe there are some who are carrying a few of their genes. And although I'd really love to see theories laid to rest, IMO, he shouldn't be cloned like some animal. I believe he is at least a cousin and doesn't deserve to be turned into a lab rat or exhibit.

Re:Yes

[FredFredrickson]

I agree, though, the rules should apply to everyone. Everyone deserves to be treated with basic respect, in my opinion.

I agree. I've got nothing against any race. I grew up in a diverse area, and I think it's normal. Some people in the North Eastern US where I am now (say, northern NH and Maine) don't see many colors other than white, and they get nervous around.. *other colors*.

But if the rules applied to everyone, then that means that not only can I not call black people the "n" word (which would *AND* should get me a beat down), but black people gotta stop calling me cracker. I mean seriously.

I show respect to all people that I meet. But I swear, if another bra-burning man-hater decides equality is 65% theirs, I just don't know what to do.

Anyway, the best way to insult somebody is to avoid the stereotypes. Calling Bush a monkey is funny cause it's true. Calling Obama a monkey is a racial slur. Call obama a clown or something that has no current connection with his race, and you're clear. That's why we can call white people porch monkeys. ... no no it's ok. I'm taking it back.

Re:Yes

[Verteiron]

Depending on who you talk to, the genes for blond and red hair are thought to have come from Neanderthal. It's possible they didn't die out so much as were absorbed.

Re:Yes

[Prien715]

I was unaware bears and humans were attempting genocide on one another -- can you let me know when this happened? I was very surprised to hear the bears were doing this -- I thought they ate honey and stole picnic baskets all day.

A larger issue, I suppose, would be the uniquely human capacity to completely exterminate a species. Even in our early days, we show great promise at genocide.

Re:Yes

[YouWantFriesWithThat]

you raise interesting points, but one comment:
when hunting with home-made tools it is generally inadvisable to throw a spear. only one shot, less power applied to penetration, chance of damaging, etc. a spear is very good at extending reach, allowing additional strength be applied after the initial strike, and pinning prey down until they bleed out or are attacked by your companions. if i was hunting for survival i would keep a firm grip on the spear, personally.

Re:Yes

[Cyberax]

AK-47 doesn't help much against bears too.

I (briefly) served on military base in Siberia, and almost the first thing we were told is that you shouldn't use AK to shoot bears. With a lot of chilling stories of people who tried it.

PS: bears were a problem there. They usually do not come close to people. But if a hibernating bear wakes too early or can't start hibernating, it can become mad from hunger (there's not much food during the winter) and start attacking people.

Re:Yes

[Glimmerdark]

"Modern humans were more vulnerable to the cold than Neanderthals and developed these tools as far back as 90,000 years ago to cope with cooler parts of Africa, before the peak of the ice age." from your linked article on the clothing. 'designed for the ice age' might have been a bit of an incorrect statement- but they were certainly more at home in colder climates, with a much more solid trunk and thicker limbs. this likely made them significantly stronger than modern man, and likely able to absorb more punishment as well. however, on the downside- they were likely no where near as swift as modern man, and burned huge amounts of energy while active. this would require them to consume more food, and be less able to travel the ranges required to find that food. all of this is at least marginally speculation, and going into the ideas of clothing and interbreeding stretches even further into the realm of the unknown. cloning certainly wouldn't tell us what caused the extinction, but it likely would give us a much clearer picture of what the species was like.

Re:Yes

[hey!]

You are correct. However, I think the original poster has a point. The fact that they became extinct and we did not does not prove we are smarter. We could be better adapted in other ways. I can think of several dozens of ways we might be better adapted off the bat: we might have better immune systems. We might have been better at storing food as fat. We're appear better adapted for a nomadic lifestyle, giving us a survival advantage.

However, here's the interesting one: going by the skeletons, the size of the attachment points of tendons and so on, Neandertals were powerful brutes who could take apart an elite modern strength athlete with ease. It's been estimated that Neandertals could lift as much as 2000 pounds, twice the current world deadlift record.

Neandertal skeletons also reveal two other interesting features. They often show signs of broken bones. The nature of these injuries have lead some to speculate that Neandertals often wrestled large prey to the ground. The other feature is that the majority of Nandertals skeletons show signs of malnutrition during development.

Modern humans, by comparison, are puny wimps. This gives us lower energy requirements, which is a survival advantage. Imagine two equally intelligent species, one much more physically powerful but with high energy requirements, and one much less powerful but better able to survive periods of famine. The latter might well be spurred to rely on its intelligence more.

So, I'm speculating that having to make do with less meant we discovered more possibilities in our greatest asset, which is our intelligence.

Re:Yes

[jc42]

Well, maybe. The main assumption was a fairly standard one: The human size difference between males and females is at least partly due to "sexual selection". That is, human females like big males and human males like small females. This seems to be somewhat of a universal among not just humans, but primates in general. And it probably came about because males are "expendable" and thus function as the primary defenders of a social group of primates. It matters if you lose females, but it matters less if you lose a few males. So males should be big and should hang out on the group's periphery, to be more effective defenders. This is so common in primates that the default assumption about an unknown primate species is that it follows this pattern. But couples in which the female is bigger do occur among humans, so we can't rely on it as any sort of universal rule; it's just a statistical preference.

Male preference for breast size is highly variable in humans (and weak or nonexistent in other primates), so we probably shouldn't make guesses about that, other than that permanently enlarged female breasts are a sexual dimorphism in humans. (And I do know several very attractive women with small breasts. ;-)

Another problem with the hypothesis that the Cro Magnons wiped out the Neanderthals and didn't interbreed with them is that we really don't know anything about Neanderthal genes. Some scientists have point out that it's quite possible that some number of Neanderthal genes spread to Africa well before the Cro-Magnon invasion, and those genes are part of what we consider basic human (vs. chimp or gorilla) genes. We have no way of disproving this at present. Comparing fossil Neanderthal DNA with modern African DNA would do nothing to debunk this hypothesis.

Basically, the whole topic is something that we know little about, and the chances of actually learning much more are slight. Of course, this has to be true for some remote ancestors. If we do manage to get the data to show that the Neanderthals either were or were not among our ancestors, the problem would just move to the next-oldest extinct group of hominids. So the problem will always be with us.

Probably one of the reasons for the interest in the Neanderthals is that most of the known Neanderthal "features" do turn up in modern Europeans at a low rate. This doesn't prove anything, because those features could just be adaptations to conditions in Europe over the past 40,000 years; those features evolved in the Cro Magnons' descendants for the same reasons they evolved in Neanderthals. The existence of such a feature set is "interesting", and is most easily explained by interbreeding. But it doesn't really prove anything.

Re:Yes

[PaganRitual]

I don't know if it's that cut and dried.

Remember that, theoretically, up to half the bears would be smarter than the average bear.

Although having said that, they are likely to be a lot more boo-boos for the humans to take advantage of and ... which way did you say the door was?

Advertising!

[Anonymous Coward]

1)Clone Neanderthals

2)Make Geico commercials

3)Profit!

Geico

[Kamokazi]

Geico would pay good money for the authenticity.

Well, arguably not...

[Jane Q. Public]

since they had bigger brains. Maybe not the same parts of their brains though.

Could be (quite the role-reversal?) that they were the thoughtful ones, and we were just meaner.

Who knows? We don't.

Re:Well, arguably not...

[ya really]

since they had bigger brains. Maybe not the same parts of their brains though.

If having a bigger brain was the ultimate measure of intelligence, then elephants would be geniuses

In fact, brain size does not matter in humans either. It's just an old wise tale carried over from the 19th century that still haunts us today (as seen here).

Re:Well, arguably not...

[maglor_83]

It's just an old wise tale

Old wive's tale.

Re:Well, arguably not...

[AmberBlackCat]

My mammoth is already calculating prime numbers.

Re:Well, arguably not...

[naticus]

It's just an old wise tale

Old wive's tale.

old wives' tale.

Re:Well, arguably not...

[stephenhawking]

Actually the body to brain mass ratio is directly correlated to intelligence. This may not matter among humans, but across separate species it does. The Elephant has a ratio of 1/560, where humans are 1/40. So elephants may have larger brains, but relatively speaking human brains are MUCH larger in ratio to our body mass.

Re:Well, arguably not...

[brit74]

As other people have pointed out, big brains are correlated with intelligence, although it's a bit complicated. If you were to plot total brain size and brain mass/body mass on a 2-dimensional table, you end up with humans in one corner of the table. There are obviously animals with larger brains (whales, elephants), and animals with better brain mass/body mass ratios (rats), but humans have a pretty good combination of both.

As for the article you link to, they make the claim that if brain mass is correlated with intelligence, then you should also claim that women and short people are dumber. Although, women and short people also have smaller bodies, which means their brain mass/body mass ratio may be equal or better than men. So, who knows what should be the prediction based on that. And, of course, the correlation is certainly not 1.0, so even if a brain mass/intelligence correlation exists, it's not that clear what conclusions you can draw from large/small brains.

As for neanderthals, their body mass was also larger than humans, so it's unclear whether they would actually be smarter.

Also, I happen to think that elephants and whales are probably pretty smart. Maybe not as smart as us, but if you take the animal world as a whole, I think the correlation is obvious and undeniable. The smartest animals on earth (humans, elephants, dolphins, apes, etc) have the largest brains on the planet. The only real outlier is birds. Parrots can be very smart - evolution apparently found a way to build a small intelligent brain while still allowing the animal to fly.

I also found this claim (also from your article) to be amusing: "Early humanoids had a less developed cerebral cortex and therefore could not attain what we commonly call conscious experience. The same could be said for modern apes and dolphins. An ape's brain could get bigger, but unless the cerebral cortex develops in a certain way, the ape will never achieve "thought"." Ha. It's funny in this essay that talks about debunking myths of brain size, that the author introduces his own unfounded beliefs about brains. Who's he to say that apes, dolphins, and early humans didn't have conscious experience? Apes are actually quite smart. They understand the fact that other creatures have brains and sets of beliefs. Apes can recognize their own reflection in a mirror.

More information on the brain size/intelligence correlation: "Canadian researchers examined the brains of 100 people who were given extensive IQ tests before they died and found a correlation between cerebral volume and intelligence." http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051223/brainsize_intelligence_20051223/20051223?hub=SciTech

"With respect to the question of brain size and intelligence, the most recent review I know of (there have been others) concerning the correlation between IQ and head size looked at 25 separate studies (going back to the turn of the century), comprising 39 independent normal samples (total N = 51,931; Wickett, et al. in press). They report that most correlations range between r = .10 to r = .30, with an n-weighted mean of r = .194. This is highly statistically significant, though head dimensions clearly do not explain very much of the variation in IQ.

More interestingly, 4 recent studies of this question for the first time derived estimates of brain size from high quality magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), instead of using external cranial dimensions. All 4 studies show much higher correlations: Willerman et al. (1991) report an estimated correlation of r = .35 (N = 40); Andreasen et al. (1993) found a correlation of r= .38 (N = 67); Raz et al (in press) found a correlation of r = .43 (N = 29); and Wickett et al

Re:Well, arguably not...

[destroyer661]

Just to further that, surface area and efficient use of that surface area comes into play as well. There is a reason for our brains looking like pruned grapes :D

Re:Well, arguably not...

[hengdi]

I thought the best measure was the ratio of total_cells / inputs? For humans, it's about 50:1 - for every nerve input into the brain you have 50 cells to process it. For dogs, it's 3:1, for cats 4:1. A Chimpanzee is about 12:1 and if I remember correctly a dolphin is about 10:1.

Elephants have a very large brain but they obviously also have a huge number of inputs due to the size of the nervous system.

Not animals

[anville]

Neanderthals are considered to be part of the Homo Sapiens species. Wouldn't the concerns (and legalities) be the same as any human cloning project?

Re:Not animals

[Anonymous Coward]

They are not Homo Sapiens.

They are Homo neandertalinis.

Look it up!

And furthermore, humans are animals. So "not animals" only applies to plant life.

Re:Not animals

[Veggiesama]

Neanderthals are considered to be part of the Homo Sapiens species. Wouldn't the concerns (and legalities) be the same as any human cloning project?

We both belong to the Homo genus, but Neanderthals are H. neanderthalensis, while we are H. sapiens.

Though here's an interesting paragraph on the Neanderthal page that I didn't know before I browsed around on Wikipedia:

For some time, professionals debated whether Neanderthals should be classified as Homo neanderthalensis or as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the latter placing Neanderthals as a subspecies of Homo sapiens. Genetic statistical calculation (2006 results) suggests at least 5% of the modern human gene pool can be attributed to ancient admixture, with the European contribution being from the Neanderthal.[10] Some morphological studies support that Homo neanderthalensis is a separate species and not a subspecies. [11] Some suggest inherited admixture. Others, for example University of Cambridge Professor Paul Mellars, say "no evidence has been found of cultural interaction"[12] and evidence from mitochondrial DNA studies have been interpreted as evidence Neanderthals were not a subspecies of H. sapiens.[13] Homo sapiens mtDNA from Australia (Mungo Man 40ky ) is also not found in recent human genomic pool and mtDNA sequences for temporally comparative African specimens are not yet available.

Re:Not animals

[resignator]

Um, no. We belong to the same genus not species. Assuming that is what you meant, what exactly are the concerns of cloning a human?

Most arguments I hear typically involve a religious appeal and we all know how well science and religion mix. Aside from that, I am not so sure any religion would be quick to embrace a living Neanderthal.

The best argument I could think of against cloning a Neanderthal would be the concerns I have for it's health and happiness. We know very little of the culture, diet, needs, or temperament of Neanderthals. On the other hand, we do know what a good diet consists of and what generally makes humans happy. Our cultures are rather well studied too. A cloned human living a healthy and happy life doesn't seem far fetched to me. I am not so sure about the Neanderthal.

None of this means I would rush out and clone humans or Neanderthals but I will say the concerns are not the same.

Re:Not animals

[Count Fenring]

Very good point. To take it a little farther:

Cloning is not magical powers. The clone will be born as a baby, grow up to adulthood over time. Any neanderthal culture is long gone; it would have to be raised either as an animal or a human being. Assuming that we're not being monsters here (not the only possibility, but the one I'm going to go with), let's assume that we want the neanderthal to do well, and to be treated according to its mental ability.

So we're left with a few possibilities.

Case 1: It has sub-human intellect to the point where it is satisfied/only capable of the animal level of mental function. This is the easy one; we can treat it like a zoo animal, with only the moral considerations usually involved with such. Physical evidence says this is pretty unlikely, but we don't really know.

Case 2:It's capable of the lower levels of human functionality. Say, somewhere between Forest Gump and a chimpanzee. Well, in this case, we have an intelligent being, who is a ward of the state, and who is unlike any other being on earth. It has no family, and potentially no human rights. It's entirely subject to the whims of its creators, or to the vagaries of laws that don't cover it. And who is it going to play with as a child? What is it going to do when it's older? How much experimentation is legally and morally allowable? What if it's below the legal threshold of mental function for consent, but is undeniably intelligent?

So, huge minefield there. Awesome.

Case 3: The Neanderthal is as smart as we are.

Fuck. We have all the problems of Case 2, and more. We just made a person that is, by definition, part of the world's smallest and loneliest minority. He or she will never be able to live a remotely normal or fulfilling life. Furthermore, he's coming into the world with ready-made enemies in those opposed to cloning.

I'm genuinely conflicted about this. If someone went ahead and cloned a neanderthal, I would want to talk to him/her more than anything else in the world. Talking to an intelligent being that's not human... that would be an amazing thing.

But seriously... I can't see any way that this could really be morally ok.

Re:Not animals

[lxs]

So "not animals" only applies to plant life.

And once again our fuzzy friend the fungus has been ignored.
Mushrooms have feelings too you insensitive clod.

Re:Not animals

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's capable of the lower levels of human functionality. Say, somewhere between Forest Gump and a chimpanzee"

This is exactly why we shouldn't do it. It's bound to vote Republican...

Re:Not animals

[BluenoseJake]

If you can interbreed, you are not a separate species.

Re:Not animals

[Zymergy]

Let us not leave out Eubacteria & Archaebacteria (Monera), Protista, as well as the Plantae and Fungi when describing "not animals" (Animalia)...

Re:Not animals

[Sparky McGruff]

"It's capable of the lower levels of human functionality. Say, somewhere between Forest Gump and a chimpanzee"

This is exactly why we shouldn't do it. It's bound to vote Republican...

I'd say with credentials like that, he or she could be Sarah Palin's running mate!

Re:Not animals

[blind biker]

Your post is very interesting, and I like it and agree with almost all your points except

He or she will never be able to live a remotely normal or fulfilling life.

I am sure that this person, who is different physically in some ways from the average person, can have a fulfilling and happy life. Even now we have people that are much more disfigured than a neanderthal would be (and who says that with normal shaving and toilette he/she wouldn't in fact look attractive, what with being tall and extremely muscular), and they still have happy and fulfilling lives, for the most part.

Re:Not animals

[Dr La]

There in reality is no real consensus whether Neanderthals are a subspecies of H. sapiens or a separate species. Placing it in a separate species, as some do, has more to do with the wish to keep "us" (Homo sapiens s.s.) unique, than that it has a factual background.

In the same line, it is interesting to read the comments here and see how many of them make a distinction between "humans" (i.e., "us") and Neanderthals.

But why would Neanderthals not be humans too? Because they might (or might not!) be a separate species? Well, they are even by most conservative standards still placed in the genus Homo. Which basically means "human". Is a polar bear not a bear while a brown bear is, because they are different species of bear? Of course not: they are both bears. Likewise, anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals are both humans.

It is interesting to see how many people nevertheless insist they are not. That has all to do with our perception of "us" versus "them" and wish for "us" to be "unique". It's a "genocentric" (and xenophobic) attitude.

The same phenomena is reponsible for the ongoing insistence by some that Neanderthals are necessarily cognitively inferior to us, evolutionary necessarily somewhere inbetween us and apes in cognition. This assumption really has no basis.

Looking at the archaeological record (and I should ad here that I am a paleolithic archaeologist by profession - I research Neanderthal material culture), it is clear that Neanderthals were intelligent beings involved in many activities that were similar to those of anatomically modern humans (and well beyond activities performed by extant apes). They did some things in ways we cannot comprehend, but that does not mean they were less developed cognitively: only that we cannot comprehend it with our cognition (or have been hampered in that, because we assume those differences to be due to a lower level of cognition). Those who do argue for that, merely wish to see it this way.

Neanderthals were not merely "apes". And they were not something alike to mentally retarded humans. They were different, yes. But not necessarily cognitively inferior (note: many of the "arguments" to the contrary you'll find in popular textbooks on the matter, are either outdated or factually incorrect, and the result of looking at the evidence in a very biased way. That has again more to do with the wish to keep "us" unique and at the top, the hero in the grand narrative of human evolution).

Even the fact that Neanderthals got extinct and anatomically modern Homo sapiens did not, does not imply that they were cognitively inferior. You try to argue the same for, for example, Tasmanian aborigines (who are now extinct), and you'll rightly be called a racist.

Re:Not animals

[molo]

Case 2:It's capable of the lower levels of human functionality. Say, somewhere between Forest Gump and a chimpanzee. Well, in this case, we have an intelligent being, who is a ward of the state, and who is unlike any other being on earth. It has no family, and potentially no human rights. It's entirely subject to the whims of its creators, or to the vagaries of laws that don't cover it. And who is it going to play with as a child? What is it going to do when it's older? How much experimentation is legally and morally allowable? What if it's below the legal threshold of mental function for consent, but is undeniably intelligent?

I think we already have an animal that meets that criteria, Koko the Gorilla. Check out some of the video of her communications. There have been several documentaries. It is impressive, and she is clearly a thinking self-aware being (dare I say a person?).

-molo

Legal Rights NOW!

[Anonymous Coward]

Since it's pretty clear that it's only a matter of time. we need a constitutional amendment that grants person-hood and citizenship to any and all future Neanderthal clones. Just get that crap out of the way.

Re:Legal Rights NOW!

[Iamthecheese]

+1 uncomfortable truth. "that can't happen" is looking less and less appealing as an excuse: the science fiction of yesterday is becoming today's reality. The chances of human-like behaviour emerging from something we have never need to look at as human increases by the year. If its not AI, it will be geneticaly manipulated dogs. Or neanderthals. Or a head in a vat. Or someone who was once cryonically frozen.

The law moves slowly and now is the time to define personhood. Now, before a computer asks for its rights, or a GM monkey gives a speech. As a society we must look deep into a mirror and decide whether and why each of us should have special rights.

What line?

[name*censored*]

As far as I'm concerned, there really is no point in drawing a line between human and animal. If we decide it's to be treated as a human, then it would obviously be deemed too destructive and unable to cope in society - as many people with mental issues are. At that point, we would segregate it from society in a humane habitat (as we do with mental patients, or at least the ones that can afford it :P). Now, obviously, no scientist would recieve funding for it's creation if it couldn't be studied (remember, it's not unethical to study human beings, if they aren't harmed and if it's consented to by someone with the mental capacity and authority to decide). If we decided it was an ANIMAL, obviously we would treat it like a zoo creature or pet (I'm sure no-one intends to eat this thing, even if that were legal). We would skip the mental evaluation and simply put it in a humane habitat, as we do with animals at the zoo or pets, and study it humanely (it's unethical and probably illegal to cut animals up for study). Either way, the end result is the same - the being is kept somewhere where it's not dangerous to itself or regular homo sapien sapiens, and studied. I don't understand why someone would wish to draw a line between animal and human for ethical reasons, when it would be treated the same due to it being mentally incapable of anything else.

Re:What line?

[dokebi]

Neanderthals were social, tool making beings. A solitary human being, raised in isolation, is not more more capable than a Neanderthal. This same human being will also be very maladjusted and unhappy, and thus not display "normal" behavior.

So, we must be fully ready to accept this thing as a sentient being, or not at all. Simply assuming that it could be kept locked up in a zoo or like a mental patient will reflect poorly.

And don't get me started on the obvious religious objections this project would face.

Re:What line?

[TapeCutter]

"Neanderthals had art, and they had burial rituals and also tools. Who says they are dumb? It could've been that Sapiens just wiped them out through aggression."

They also wore skins and took care of frail relatives. From what I have read it seems to me "aggression" is the most plausible answer. A significant behavioural difference was that Sapiens occupied the high ground, most predatory mammals have the same preference and (regardless of species) take a dim view of other competing predators inhabiting their territory.

Re:What line?

[ultranova]

Just imagine where we would be if religion would've been banned some 8-900 years ago...

Well, since the downsides of religions are usually connected with the attempts to suppress other religions, I'd say we would have gotten all the downsides and none of the upsides and thus would be worse off than now.

Re:What line?

[electrosoccertux]

You're interested in doing something simply to create discord? That's awfully childish...how does this make you any better than these "religious nutters"?

Clone 'em???

[nysus]

Wasn't having one of them run the country for eight years bad enough?

I don't want to go to Chelsea

[Nourn]

Considering that many people feel that Neanderthal DNA is integrated with human DNA, is there any point to this experiment?

Well

[JimboFBX]

Wouldn't that be like knowingly bringing someone into the world knowing that they are going to be horrendously ugly and live their life lonely? Wouldn't having sex with them be borderline doing it with a gorilla? What would the ethical ramification of this be?

Re:Well

[jonaskoelker]

Wouldn't that be like knowingly bringing someone into the world knowing that they are going to be horrendously ugly and live their life lonely?

Really? Some of the boys I see attached to some girls would fit the description "Neanderthal" quite well ;)

Re:Well

[Hal_Porter]

What would the ethical ramification of this be?

I'm a consultant ethicist that could advise you on this.

I have a base package where I look very vaguely at the surface of things and decide most things are immoral. I also have a premium package where I look much deeper into the history of the issues and decided that what your asking is actually ethically ok.

NO

[larryau]

Absolutely No. It is immoral and not just from a religious stand. Forget religious objections. It is simply ethically wrong. Where would it stop? It would go beyond just satisfying some intellectual curiosity to cloning species to harvest their organs.

Re:NO

[Mesa MIke]

So, what's wrong with that?

Re:NO

[Breakfast Pants]

Hey, it's slippery-slope man!

Re:NO

[AlanS2002]

Absolutely No. It is immoral and not just from a religious stand. Forget religious objections. It is simply ethically wrong. Where would it stop? It would go beyond just satisfying some intellectual curiosity to cloning species to harvest their organs.

What is ethically wrong about cloning anything. Period. I don't think the question even touched on harvesting organs. Your objection is simply irrelevant.

To low-scored comment (jeez, modders, lighten up!)

[Jane Q. Public]

No, we definitely do not. FIRST we would need to determine that they were "people", and believe me there would be a great deal of pressure to decide not. And there is a very good chance that they would not be.

We have been very charitable in the West in determining who, mentally and in body, is a "person" and who is not. Perhaps out of guilt from deciding that wrongly in the past? I don't know. Nevertheless we have granted "rights" to "people" who fit the definition only by stretching that definition. Worldwide in recent decades (if we can ignore certain parts of the Middle East and Persia), there has been more tolerance of who is a "person" and who is not, by local society's definition.

Even so, I am sure there would be an outrageous amount of resistance to this. I am not sure that even we Westerners are ready for this quite yet.

Not nearly as viable an idea

[rapierian]

Cloning a mammoth is such a likely possibility because we have so many frozen specimens throughout Siberia and Canada. As far as I know, there are no Neanderthal specimens in any reasonably comparable state.

"The Dead Will Rise"

[LuYu]

I am not the most religious of people, but does this not sound eerily like Revelation? The dead of past ages coming to life is quite creepy.

On the ethics issue, who is going to raise this child? Real parents? Or a bunch of scientists? I would define a Neanderthal as a human, and that means the clone should have Rights like everyone else. What about people who are prejudiced? I mean, if racism is a tough thing to grow up with, what about speciism ? A bunch of kids teasing him for being an "ape" could not be fun.

Re:"The Dead Will Rise"

[Broken scope]

But when the inevitable species war erupts, we can end racism.

Re:"The Dead Will Rise"

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

But when the inevitable species war erupts, we can end racism.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Racism is often based on poor logic, so how would this change anything?

Re:"The Dead Will Rise"

[Broken scope]

Eh, I'm still confused about my sarcastic comment being modded insightful.

Re:"The Dead Will Rise"

[4D6963]

It wouldn't grow up in society. You don't even need to grow up in society to be a healthy person. That's how you can homeschool your children. Not like a Neanderthal could go to regular school anyways or interact normally with people, you can't really project your childhood on a Neanderthal and try to imagine what would happen.

This being said, you must keep in mind how much this would teach us, in biology, medicine (I would hardly be surprised if it taught us something that could be used to cure something, i.e. a genetical resistance to one of our diseases or something), neurology, ethnology, philosophy, linguistics (what do you know, maybe we could probably teach them a spoken language, or even written! And knowing what their cognitive and speech abilities are would be amazing), and so on.

As for being lonely, just make twins, or triplets, that would also teach you about social interactions between themselves, and you'd probably see a form of communication emerge which would be of course very interesting to learn about.

Religious point of view

[Amiralul]

If God have meant for us to clone a Neanderthal, He would provide us the tools and the knowledge to do that!!

Housing, Nursery, or a Zoo?

[G3ckoG33k]

Housing, Nursery, or a Zoo?

I think that may become the biggest obstacle.

When that is decided, should we let him/her go to school and socialize or should we let keep him locked up for study.

What?

[neokushan]

That's like asking "Should I flash linux onto the Microwave so I can use it as a file server?" or "Should I port Doom to the Credit-card reader I bought off eBay?" or "Should I build a deliberately complicated system of relays, pulleys, levers, programs and scripts so that I may control the precise movements and power output by a bog-standard toaster remotely, from 500 miles away?". I mean, really, do you have to ask? Of course we fucking should!

Evolution

[Detritus]

Survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the smartest or survival of the strongest. What if Neanderthals are mentally and physically superior to Homo Sapiens? I can't wait to hear the NFL Players' Association bitching about unfair competition. These guys used to hunt mammoths with wooden spears. They don't need protective equipment and they will kick your ass.

Re:Evolution

[smellotron]

I don't think the NFL allows wooden spears in play...

Re:Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

but the NHL does

Re:Evolution

[pato101]

Neanderthals smarter approach to Evolution:
1) Extinct. Seems a bad move but:
2) Wait for Sapiens clone them up."If they extincted, they cannot be smart"
3) Rule the world! Muhahhahha

I guess xkcd could make a comic with this script.

Re:Evolution

[Alarindris]

1. Go extinct.
2. Get cloned by future version of species.
3. ???
4. Profit!!

Fixed that for ya :P

yay, racial slurs!

[spiffmastercow]

go back to 4chan douchebag

Of course!

[Mr. Flibble]

Of course we should clone one...

How else am I going to get a date?

What do you do with the mistakes?

[baomike]

You have a problem (if that is the right word) if one is cloned.
But what of the problems with a clone that is defective but viable?

Sure, why not?

[Star Particle]

Once it learns how to speak, it can tell us what it was like to live back then!

Not so.

[Jane Q. Public]

In fact, people of high IQ do in fact tend to have larger brains. This is a statistic that has been demonstrated repeatedly over many years.

Many people like to use Einstein as anecdotal evidence, as he did in have have a larger brain than the average. But all anecdotal evidence aside, there is a positive correlation that cannot be responsibly denied.

BUT... having said that, here is a subspecies that had a demonstrably different brain. How different was it? Which parts large, which parts smaller? Those are very significant facts about which we are mostly ignorant.

Re:Not so.

[jamstar7]

Yeah, my ex used to tell me 'size doesn't matter' before running off with that surfer dude...

Re:Yes. Yes. Yes.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

We're gonna throw dinner rolls at one another?

Amazingly enough, the term bunfight has nothing to do with fighting or buns (or indeed food of any sort).

Oh well, it's not exactly like it's the first time a Briticism has been used incorrectly on /.

This has been on my mind for a few years ...

[JoeGee]

It has nothing to do with the Geico commercials. As other posters have noted, the simple fact of the matter is the "resurrection" of a non-human species, be it homo neanderthalensis (homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or homo florensis, will happen some time this century.

The DNA we have extracted from mammoth hair is from two individual mammoths who died between twenty and sixty thousand years ago. The supposed limit of DNA viability is roughly sixty thousand years. H. neanderthalensis went extinct less than fifteen thousand years ago. H. florensis is thought to have been around as recently as the past thirteen thousand years. I'd say we stand a good chance of recovering genetic material from either, or both of these species.

Should we bring these species out of evolutionary retirement? It's a dilemma:

1. How badly do scientists want to cheese off the world's major religions? I am ambivalent towards this. Ya know, some of the self-righteous pious freaks we have walking around spouting nonsense today deserve a swift kick in the nads. Still, is it worth the potential backlash?

2. Is this ethically justifiable? What could we do with a living genome that we could not do with that genome in a comparative study? How will we justify the potential gain in knowledge versus the rights of the resultant being when he or she is carried to term, reared, and socialized? Will he or she have full rights? Will he or she be able to be valued within society? Is some loony with a gun going to go "big game hunting" or "abominatinon-killing"?

3. Someone else in the comments discussed dealing with this individual if he or she is significantly psychologically and mentally different from us. What can we offer such an individual besides life in a high tech zoo?

4. Some things will be forever beyond us. We'll never hear true Neanderthal language, we'll never observe untainted Neanderthal culture, and a feral child experiment with any of the homo genus we'd be capable of bring back is pretty much unconscionable. Are we looking for answers where there are none?

I guess it comes down to what we can learn versus the risks. I think the one thing we might be able to learn from h. neanderthalensis is how we as a species look to an outside observer. Do we really want them to look us in the eyes and tell us what they see?

I'm not certain we're prepared for it.

-Joe

Re:This has been on my mind for a few years ...

[sakdoctor]

4. We could if we sent it to public school.

Re:This has been on my mind for a few years ...

[Y.A.A.P.]

I guess it comes down to what we can learn versus the risks. I think the one thing we might be able to learn from h. neanderthalensis is how we as a species look to an outside observer. Do we really want them to look us in the eyes and tell us what they see?

Assuming they are cognitively capable of expressing an opinion as an outside observer, what horrible thing could they say about us that hasn't already been said about us by us (and is for a certain percentage of the population, depending upon what is said, absolutely true)?

So, yes, I would be interested in knowing how an outside observer views us. It may also prove of some use in girding us for reactions from an intelligent alien species, should we ever come across any.

I would also have to say that a living example of the genome would confirm information about its capabilities, where we could only ever be "almost certain" about a dead one. Besides, the technology on reading a genome and determining capabilities in that manner is much further away than that of creating a living example and seeing what it really is capable of doing.

Of course, all of this is coming from someone who will have no responsibilities as to the care of the life that is created by this experiment. The opinion of those who will have to change the kid's diapers carries alot more weight than mine does.

Re:queue...

[pilgrim23]

Geico would make an Obscene CLone Fall

RIP, Phil Hartman

[fo0bar]

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW.. and run off into the hills, or wherever.. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, I wonder: "Did little demons get inside and type it?" I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. But there is one thing I do know - when a man like my client slips and falls on a sidewalk in front of a public library, then he is entitled to no less than two million in compensatory damages, and two million in punitive damages. Thank you.

Also not so.

[Jane Q. Public]

First, correlation does not imply causation.

Second, a statistic can be perfectly valid, but it still says absolutely nothing about a specific case. If it did, you would be able to reliably predict when a coin flip came up "heads".

So you are simply wrong, yet again: I implied no such thing.

What I want to know is...

[NerveGas]

Whatever happened to the wooly mammoth? Years ago, some company was going to try to clone one, and have an elephant carry it to birth. That would have been cool.

A neanderthal, though? I dunno. There's just something creepy about cloning something to study... that can be embarrassed by the fact that it's being studied.

On the upside, I have no doubt that he/she would make it big in fetish porn.

Re:Quick question

[Hojima]

Nope, his brain was most likely removed without permission: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein's_brain

Anyways cloning humans isn't against human rights or unethical. Would you debate your existence if someone told you that you were cloned? What if humanity lost its ability to naturally procreate? Would it suddenly change to not being against God's will? Humans play God every day when we take or prolong life, and I say if it's for the better of humanity, I'm sure God would be cool with it.

Re:No.

[bradbury]

I would suggest that you go learn some molecular biology before you make comments like this.

Here is how you would do it.
1) Sequence the ancient DNA and assemble it until you feel you have a "complete" genome sequence.
2) Either mutate an existing human genome using the technology Sangamo as or assemble a complete synthetic genome using technology such as that Synthetic Genomics is developing.
3) Replace the genome in an existing human cell with the Neanderthal artificial genome or create a artificial cell using the artificial genome (this is the part which hasn't really been demonstrated yet). Alternatively if one can create an artificial nucleus you could presumably transfer it into an enucleated human cell using the standard nuclear transfer techniques used in cloning.
4) Take the neanderthal cell and subject it to current iPS procedures to generate a neanderthal stem cell.
5) Transfer the nucleus of this cell into a human egg (standard cloning procedures again).
6) Implant said egg (now functioning as a fertilized neanderthal zygote) into a human host (or if synthetic wombs are available one of those).
7) Wait ~7-9 months for either C-section birth or natural birth.

Of course there are a lot of things that can go wrong in this process so one is probably going to have to do it multiple times. But its the same basic methods that will probably be used to resurrect the woolly mammoth.

There is no need to undertake gene therapy on any human child or adult. I cannot see any "unethical" argument because one never has to work with a human embryo. I would also point out that we will be doing human embryo modifications relatively soon to correct genetic defects. Watch and see how the debate develops once the genes for intelligence become more clearly known. Argue the morality of knowingly giving birth to a child of below average intelligence!

Incorrect

[Jane Q. Public]

You are simply wrong about the rhythm method; it aims to time sex such that the fertilized egg does not implant. That is the WHOLE point of the method! It does absolutely nothing to address whether an egg gets fertilized. (The egg most commonly gets fertilized in the fallopian tubes, one to many days before implantation. There is no way to reliably control or time the release of eggs, so this is effectively random. The only thing that can be timed with any regularity is the "fertility" period, which means timing the menstrual cycle... which means when it is possible for the egg to implant.) The two most commonly used measures for the rhythm method are basal temperature and cervical mucus, which are both tied to the menstrual cycle, NOT the release of eggs.

Second, "murder" does imply intent. And if (as described above) you INTEND to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting (which, again, is the DEFINITION of the rhythm method... look it up!), then you would be committing premeditated murder! According to your own logic.

You did bring up one good point, but you even got that one wrong. Life does not start at conception. A sperm is a living cell. An egg is a living cell. According to accepted definitions of "living organisms".

But if you meant that "human life" starts at conception -- a valid human "person" -- then again, by the arguments above, you had damned well better rethink your behavior. Because you are likely already a murderer.

You said it, I didn't. I am just pointing out where your facts and logic are faulty.

Re:Incorrect

[fractoid]

I read a great quote on here a while ago. Something along the lines of "life only began once on this planet, and we're all just little bits of it".

Re:Quick question

[Count Fenring]

Except that a cloned individual is only genetically identical.

That'll be a Catch 22 if we can clone people and their memories, which isn't reasonably a thing to be expected.

Slave Caste

[sqrt(2)]

Let's bring them back to use as a subjugated slave caste doing jobs that are too hard or dangerous for humans.

Re:Slave Caste

[Dannon]

Like this job here?

What about modern diseases ?

[Saffaya]

It is probable that reviving a human from so far in time means his DNA doesn't have the defenses we evolved against current diseases ?

Would our vaccines even work ?

Re:What about modern diseases ?

[mentaldingo]

Immunities are inherited from the mother while in the womb.

Re:What about modern diseases ?

[Uberbah]

Just make it a reality TV show, you'll have plenty of volunteers.

Re:What about modern diseases ?

[mentaldingo]

Many of the volunteers may be neanderthals too.

Re:Quick question

[something_wicked_thi]

No, no, no, no, NO!

You've missed the point.

You do not start by cloning geniuses. Then you might end up with an evil genius and that would just end badly for everyone involved. No, it's far better to start with neanderthals and work your way up. Dear lord, you need to watch more horror movies.

Re:Quick question

[Hognoxious]

Dead Men Cloning Act?

and then there are the exceptions.

[cheekyboy]

What about the kid that had brain cancer, and they removed like 90% of his brain, but he was just as smart, zero reduction in ability.

Surely that prooves, size does not equal processing power, like gates does not equals MIPS in cpus.

Isnt 90% of the brain redundancies and backups. Who knows maybe nurons have qantum access in time, and store information in a time warp, rather than atoms.

Re:and then there are the exceptions.

[Hognoxious]

If it's redundancies and backups then there's a reason for it being there, and you'll miss it when you need it.

The brain is an expensive thing, and if it was possible to do the same job with a smaller and cheaper one we'd presumably have evolved that way.

Re:and then there are the exceptions.

[meringuoid]

Evolution optimizes for efficiency only when it matters to survival or reproduction.

The brain alone accounts for 20% of the human body's oxygen consumption and 25% of glucose consumption. If 90% of the brain is surplus to requirements, then optimising for efficiency could produce a saving of 22.5% of the body's glucose supply and 18% of the oxygen supply. Does the ability to survive on 22.5% less food matter to survival?

Re:and then there are the exceptions.

[bluntman2008]

Does the ability to survive on 22.5% less food matter to survival?

Yes.

Re:What?

[catxk]

Why is this not modded insightful? The post is spot on. We do what we can with being able to do it as the only justification. This attitude is fundamental to the progress of the human civilization.

There is no line

[DrSkwid]

We are all animals. It's like saying where do we draw the line between snails and other animals. Makes no sense (except that they are not snails!)

Case 4

[Jane Q. Public]

The Neanderthal is considerably smarter than we are.

(Unlikely but possible.)

Resolution: It could be smarter than a human, but is extremely unlikely to be smarter than all humans. A team of people could take it down if necessary.

Re:That used to be my understanding

[dargaud]

Are the base elements (neurons, dendrids...) larger in a larger (elephant, large dog vs small one...) brain ?

Actually, it's probably 3 or close enough

[Moraelin]

Actually, look at the evidence we have for Neanderthals. They

- built tools to build other tools with. Chimps build improvised tools for the moment, then discard them. Building a hammer, so you can build an axe with it, is a human trait and implies quite a bit of intelligence.

- apparently had at least some level of work specialization and that would imply some form of commerce. At least as in, "me give you dead antelope, if you make me big strong stone spear." Again, that's not something chimps do. (Though Bonobos seem to have figured out stuff like "I'll give you two bananas for sex.")

- they built crude musical instruments (but then it took H. Sapiens a long time to make any better ones too.)

- they seem to have had (primitive) ceremonial burial, which in turn implies _some_ concept of afterlife or at least remorse. That's a bit of abstract concept there. You don't see a cat giving her dead kitten an elaborate burial.

- they decorated themselves with crude "jewellery" and paints (i.e., basically cosmetics). Again, it seems to suggest some kind of society and the brain power where that kind of thing matters. E.g., the concept of a social status. You don't even bother carrying, say, a necklace of sabertooth teeth unless that tells the others something about you martial prowess and that matters somehow. Or maybe if you have some kind of a mythology where that invokes the power of that tiger, but that's even more complex thinking.

- they skinned animals and made primitive clothes and shelters. (Well, primitive by our standards, but quite ahead of just digging a burrow like an animal.)

- apparently some figured out how to use coal, where it was easily accessible. (Homo Sapiens never really bothered too much with it until the industrial age.)

Etc.

I'd say that's clearly ahead of animal level. I'd say it's at the very least Forest Gump level.

Re:Already Done

[smittyoneeach]

Trite and obvious.
Yet, the way it could pave,
For another resurrection:
Burma Shave

Then by that logic

[Giant Electronic Bra]

They would be smarter. In case anyone has missed this, Neanderthal Man had a larger brain than us.

In fact recently some other 'early modern' human fossils from I believe South Africa have been dug up that have significantly bigger brains than us.

Whales and Elephants, etc have bigger brains too. Brain size isn't necessarily an exact correlate to intelligence.

Re:Silly Humans! Clone an EINSTEIN !!

[MrNaz]

There are plenty of those here already!!

Indeed. What I want to know is what attracts them all to YouTube.

Re:Quick question

[MrNaz]

Wouldn't work.

Geniuses are more the product of their upbringing and social circumstances during their development as a human being and less the product of some genetic accident.

Yes, that means that the "average" human could, with the right parenting, circumstances and/or education (as distinct from schooling, which what passes off as education these days), be a genius.

Possible soon?

[techstar25]

"Such a feat should be possible soon"

One top scientist was quoted as saying, "It's so easy a caveman could do it".

Re:Silly Humans! Clone an EINSTEIN !!

[thebheffect]

You could make a very good argument that the atomic bomb created a much more stable post-WWII political atmosphere. How many people would have died in a US-USSR showdown?

I think it's certainly worth the effort

[jollyreaper]

We shouldn't clone just one but enough for a family group with enough genetic diversity for breeding. Being higher level mammals, they would certainly need a cultural framework provided for upbringing. The ideal environment would probably be one where human researchers live with a troop of docile primates -- not chimps because they're too violent but along those lines, go the whole Jane Goodall route. The Neanderthal children will then have exposure to a more typical ape society as well as human. With this exposure, we can see if they're more human or ape-like in development. Can you imagine the scientific excitement if we discover they can speak? And just imagine our surprise if they do fall within the range of average human intelligence.

Artificial Morality

[Tisha_AH]

The entire argument against cloning is coming from well-meaning, do-gooders who for the most part, lack the capacity to understand the implications of cloning. There seems to be this thought that a cloned individual would be lacking in some capacity or held up as a carnival sideshow.

You may recall that back in 1978 the same furor erupted over the idea of a test-tube-baby. Louise Brown was raised as a normal child, had a normal upbringing and has her own family now. I would bet that if you asked her what her opinion is on being a test-tube-baby, she would look you in the eye and wonder how your head is screwed on.

Maybe the fears really revolve around our definition of what is intelligence and the seat of the soul. Intellect, development and the human condition are easy to define. The theocratic's will argue on the state of the soul (an intangible as we know it). To put the brakes on bringing a clone to life because of our fear that they would not have a soul is in the land of isty-misty bogeyman stories.

Cloning, even from an intact cell, should not raise such a visceral reaction, unless there is some belief that this will "steal" a soul from heaven or hell. Cloning of the long dead (even from pieces of DNA re-assembled in a laboratory process) is no different from a theological standpoint.

We are not going to create a "neanderthal park" where people will come and gawk at the nearly human. But we do need to define what is an intelligent being (dolphins, apes, neanderthal's, etc...) before some intelligence comes to our planet and decides that we are amongst the least intelligent on our own planet.

Re:Artificial Morality

[Prien715]

There's only 2 potential issues I can think of, both of which are predicated on it being widespread. A few cloned individuals wouldn't hamper a society, but were it to be become reasonably widespread, it could become a status symbol, like a pure-bred dog.

After this, we'd lose diversity. By its very nature, cloning introduces a non-genetically new breeder to the gene pool. It'll be like the royal family all over again. The second issue, is that if cloning became widespread, human evolution would stop (again, lack of diversity).

The largest difference between cloning and test tube babies, would again, be original genetic source material.

These implications may seem sci-fi, but we are talking about cloning;)

(Again, as a caveat, if cloning were as widespread as "test tube babies" are now, I think you're correct in your assessment)

Re:To low-scored comment (jeez, modders, lighten u

[ph0rk]

Sexually active women using the pill get fertilized eggs from time to time, they just don't implant in the uterus.

So, maybe use the google before getting on your soapbox.

Re:Silly Humans! Clone an EINSTEIN !!

[MindKata]

"I thought Neanderthals actually had *bigger* brains than we do."

An Elephant has a much larger brain than a human. That doesn't make Elephants more intelligent than humans.
e.g. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Elephant-intelligence

... unless that is, Elephants are so intelligent, that they can hide their intelligence from us! :)

Not the issue

[Nerdposeur]

The entire argument against cloning is coming from well-meaning, do-gooders who for the most part, lack the capacity to understand the implications of cloning. There seems to be this thought that a cloned individual would be lacking in some capacity or held up as a carnival sideshow.

I oppose cloning for none of the reasons you state. Biologically, a clone is the same as a twin. Theologically, twins have souls, and so would clones. They're just people whose genes happen to match someone else's.

My problem with cloning rests on two things:

• Primarily, the trial-and-error creation of human embryos, destroying those that aren't wanted
• Secondarily, the potential for people/governments to start "manufacturing" people to suit their desires, making us view fellow humans more like commodities

Neither of these are bogeyman ideas. The first reflects a definition of "human life" that you may not share, but for which there are valid arguments.

The second reflects the way oppressive governments already view people, but makes it worse. If you haven't read "Brave New World" with its descriptions of people bred with jobs in mind, including being slightly brain-damaged before birth so they'd be content with dumb jobs, you should. Ask yourself what guys like Kim Jong-il would do with that ability.

Re:Quick question

[sribe]

Actually, it is unethical--because of the flaws in the process & results. I'm guessing that you have no idea how many deformed & crippled sheep they get before they get a single "good" clone--or how the "good" clone ages much more rapidly than a naturally born sheep. If the process were perfected, then there would be plenty of room for debate about ethics, but as the process stands now, it would highly unethical to clone a person.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:To clone or not to clone

[Daetrin]

"note the lack of "h" - Neandertal is a placename in Germany; the Neander Valley, and it is spelled that way"

The Neaderthal skeletons found in Neander Valley were discovered in 1856, before German spelling was regularized in 1901, and thus at the time it was spelled "Neanderthal." Since scientific names are "writ in stone" once they've been formalized the species is always going to be Homo neanderthalensis, or possibly Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, depending on the results of genetic studies.

Whether the spelling of the common name should be updated to match the current German spelling is debatable, but your insistence that it has to be without an 'h' is just plain wrong. Both spellings are accepted, though as Robert J. Sawyer notes in "Is it Neanderthal or Neandertal?" about other species with similar etymological problems, "those who favor the use of the spelling 'Neandertal man' are notably silent when the topic of Peking man comes up; there's no movement to change that name to 'Beijing man,' even though the city's name is always spelled Beijing in English these days."

Another question is how to pronounce either "Neanderthal" or "Neanderthalensis," with a 't' sound or a 'th' sound. Again it's a matter for debate and there's no "correct" answer, both pronunciations are accepted. The pronunciation in German is "tal" rather than "thal," no matter which way it's spelled, but that has little bearing on the English/American pronunciation. If it was always proper to use the pronunciation from the original language then, as Robert J. Sawyer pointed out in the above article, the only proper way to pronounce "Paris" would be the way the French do, "par-ee," and anyone who insisted on doing that all the time would not come across so well in America. Given how long English has been around and how many words it has adopted there are too many other examples of adapted spellings and pronunciations that are now considered proper English to count.

So you can call it whichever you want, but i am quite happy to spell it "Neanderthal" and pronounce it with the "h" sound because that sounds most natural to me, and no reference to current German spelling or pronunciation is a valid argument against me doing so.

Re:Quick question

[cyberchondriac]

Wouldn't work.

Geniuses are more the product of their upbringing and social circumstances during their development as a human being and less the product of some genetic accident.

Yes, that means that the "average" human could, with the right parenting, circumstances and/or education (as distinct from schooling, which what passes off as education these days), be a genius.

What was so unique about Einstein's upbringing? He basically drove himself. It seems more genetic than environment to me, though I'm sure both play a role.
You can foster a learning environment where people gain book smarts and value wisdom, but intelligence itself (the ability to learn, solve problems, and recognize patterns)is an internal value, IMO.

Anyway, I'd love to see a "real" Neanderthal. Hey, maybe they could blend the DNA to make it an "Einstein Neanderthal"!

Re:Silly Humans! Clone an EINSTEIN !!

[thebheffect]

Seeing as how the Cold War passed and entered us into an age of disarmament, I'd say I'd choose 'discomfort' over a massive war.

Re:Silly Humans! Clone an EINSTEIN !!

[my_left_nut]

Not so fast. We're anything *but* disarmed. Last I looked we still have loads of deployed nuclear weapons pointing at each other, and are now entering an age of increased geopolitical instability and acute resource shortages. Oil, fresh water, metals... all are going to be in short supply. This is not the time to become complacent and think we've dodged the nuclear bullet as the varying large superpowers and superpower wannabes try to out-dick each other for what's left of an ever-decreasing pie.

Re:Silly Humans! Clone an EINSTEIN !!

[Pharmboy]

How many people would have died in a US-USSR showdown?

Which one, Korea, Vietnam or to a lesser degree, Afghanistan in the 1980s? Nukes certainly did provide some stability of sorts, but US/USSR relations haven't been bloodless. We just killed each other by proxy.

Re:Silly Humans! Clone an EINSTEIN !!

[johnny0099]

Indeed. What I want to know is what attracts them all to YouTube.

Well, I can't speak for all cave dwellers, but I go for the free food. And the chicks are cool.