Playing God with Neanderthals

I saw a TV show in the Uk some time ago where they made someone up as a Neaderthal and had him walk around London.No-one batted an eye ...

I thought the question was on the morality of doing this whole 'create a Neaderthal from a reconstructed DNA sequence'Would there be such a fuss if we were talking about Dodos (as someone else mentioned)?

The point being made in the show was that there is already such diversity of appearance amongst Homo Sapiens, that some-one would have to be very far removed to be noticed.

Maybe Neaderthals include the daughters of man who the sons of god found fair ....

I actually laughed out loud with that one Not sure who the 'sons of god' are who are mentioned in Genesis -- suggestions on a post-card to ...Back to the question though (and I haven't been here regularly for some time):Why is there a problem 'creating' a Neanderthal from recovered DNA?Is it JUST because they are so like us that it would make some people uncomfortable?If the same question would NOT arise when considering 'resurrecting', say, a mammoth then I can only presume that the discomfort factor is high in the list.I don't think you would necessarily find out much about Neaderthal behaviour though, since the newly sprung Neaderthal would have no-one to learn Neanderthalness from.

Doesn't Job 2:1 kind of hint that the sons of God are the 'angels' -- since Satan is one of them?

So it's just a matter of human arrogance then.'If it looks like us, and might think like us we better be nice to it (unless it's actually one of us then we can abuse the hell out of it)'.All based on assumptions of worth where the comparison is 'how much like a human is it?'

If humans want to learn they need to try to side-step their own arrogance.I think it is entirely correct to strive for behaviour other than what we see in this world today ... don't you?Perhaps we should just sit back and say 'Well, it's just the way we're made.' and accept all the counter productive 'stuff' ...

Isn't measuring worth by comparison to one's own species 'arrogant'?

Some people DO have that reaction to the farming of pigs, cattle etc. for meat.What about extending rights to animals that feel pain in different ways to us?Isn't it arrogant to apply humanity as the norm by which all other compassion etc. is measured?In the pursuit of knowledge shouldn't we side-step emotion?... hmmm ... maybe that would be a little dangerous after all now that I see it written down.

Learm what? ... pretty much anything of any use to them. If humans sit about assuming things based upon some unacknowledged principle (e.g. arrogance) then they will miss an awful lot in an awful lot of fields of study.Not sure what other criterion could be used to measure 'worth' (which is itself a fairly vague concept), but it seems to me that basing that on a measure of similarity is arrogant and somewhat counter-productive.

... but they aren't a great match phsyiologically ... are they?What about trialling on people dying of whatever the thing is supposed to cure?I'm sure a sufferer would be more than willing to give informed consent.

Thinking that its up to us to GIVE those rights in the first place is probably the most arrogant position ... but life is life, and all of it is necessary for the survival of the planetary eco-system so should be equally revered.... but if we move down that route we end up in a very tricky position ...

That's a good point.

Edited by Peter, : No reason given.