Playing God with Neanderthals

In a recent article in Discover magazine, a geneticist was discussing a project sequencing and rebuilding the Neanderthal genome. The end result could be used to literally bring Neanderthals back from extinction.It was suggested that either a chimp or a human woman volunteer could be used to bring a fetus to term. Frankly, I suspect it would have to be a human to work, and I don't think they will have too much of a problem finding a volunteer.The article also mentions questions of morality involved in the project.Perhaps I am profoundly immoral, but I don't really see the issue.Here are the things I can think of as "problems" for this being, assuming the project were to happen.1) Psychological - issues around being "the only one of my kind". This assumes that Neanderthals are so profoundly different than us that he/she would fall WELL OUTSIDE the range of human appearance and would feel profoundly isolated.I don't see how this is any different than people born with severe disabilities or sexually ambiguous genitalia. They too are "outside" the normal set of human experience. Is it immoral to allow them to live?2) Unforeseen medical problems - We don't know, nor could we know, the full range of medical issues a Neanderthal could have when thrust into the regular world. This could range from the moderate (and almost certain) dietary issues like complete lactose intolerance to severe peanut allergies. They could include a vulnerability to diseases we don't even realize are still present given our robust inherited tolerance developed over thousands of years.Could this child be born into a "bubble boy" existence? If that is immoral, should we abort any fetus which likewise would be born into such an existence?3) Playing "God" - Some might object to the fact that we would be bringing a species back from extinction. However, I've never heard anyone raise morality issues around a suggestion that be close the thilacine or the dodo. So, it seems like this is an object to our bringing back specifically a species of human.Frankly, I don't get the objection. I understand moral issues around "playing God" when were talking about developing weapons which take life away from people. However, in this case we are giving life to something which otherwise would not exist.In my view "morality" is about depriving someone ELSE of something or forcing unwanted things upon someone. Punching someone who does not want to be punch is immoral. Punching yourself or someone who ASKS you to punch them is not.One could argue that this being is having "life" forced upon them, but given that they don't exist prior to this event, how can it be immoral?Anyway, don't know where this should go threadwise, just thought it was an interesting topic for discussion.Edited by Admin, : Change title.

Well, obviously if they knew ahead of time that there was a severe disability they wouldn't move all the way through the pregnancy

If by this you mean that it would have a serious birth defect or something, then I would say we abort the fetus when we see signs of them.However, if by this you mean that simply being a Neanderthal was disgusting, it raises the moralistic question, shouldn't we force all the "disgusting" species into extinction in order to spare them?

The article mentions some potential that the Neanderthal may have immunities that we don't.However, there are a whole host of other things I can think of. For example, this would be a huge boon to neurology to see how a different kind of human brain functions. Ditto psychology. That about nature vs nuture, this would open doors we didn't even know were their.Neanderthals also had some physical adaptation which we infer but can not prove from the bone record. Things like massive pain tolerance - most, if not all Neanderthal skeletons - have multiple bone breaks which have healed. I seriously doubt anyone will get paid to do this apart from what money they would earn publishing their story, etc.I suspect there will be at least 20 women working in the fields of biology who'd be willing to do this.I see no reason why you would need to take the child away from the mother. Well, yes and no. If you do genetic testing which reveals the child will be disabled and choose not to abort it, you are deliberately bringing a disabled baby into the world. How about NYC? Apart from a prominent brow and a weak chin, they wouldn't look very different at all. In fact, there is a large Armenian population here in S. California. They've got brow ridged that would put Neanderthal to shame.

In most scientific research the end results aren't easily predictable at the outset.Microwave popcorn was not the goal of the first microwave dishes. However, you'd be hard pressed to argue that the microwave is not primarily used as a home appliance today.There are a lot of questions this could help answer - physiological, biochemical, sociological, psychological, linguistic, etc, etc etc. But, more importantly, there could be whole areas which we can't even predict.Could this lead to a breakthrough in cosmetics? Maybe. Who knows? Disease immunity? Cure for cancer? Cure for paralysis? No idea.We don't restrict scientific advancement based on whether or not there is a clear objective from the study because more often than not the end result is completely unpredictable.

This sort of thinking has been popular in anthropological circles for a long time.The problem is there isn't really any evidence to support the claims.Did we have more sophisticated language than neanderthals? No evidence for or against.Are our tools more "artistic"? Opinion. Further, it doesn't carry any weight.It is true that we painted cave walls and they didn't. But does that mean they never created art? For all we know they could have been the world's greatest wittlers.We know they had religion. We know they were doing things with bear skulls which serve no functional purpose and therefore are artistic.The primary reason that we survived while they didn't was that the environment in which they had lived for so long was changing faster than they could adapt to it.Neanderthals were supremely well adapted to the cold and to killing big game animals in upclose attacks.They could thrust a spear through a mastadon no problem.What they could not do was throw a spear and hit a deer.Morphologically, they were set up to take down big game once in a while and use that to feed the clan. We are set up to take down medium to small game often in order to feed our clan.When the weather changed, the ratio of small to big game changed with it. Neanderthals disappeared for the same reasons the big game disappeared, they no longer fit that environment.The question then becomes - will this new Neanderthal have a problem surviving in our environment.I would suggest not. I can't hunt down and kill anything, I have absolutely no problem getting food.

While I would not put it past people to complain about dodo resurrection, I agree that there wouldn't be nearly the fuss.I think the primary problem people have with this morally is that it raises a HUGE question about what it means to be human.Would a neanderthal be _human_, and if so, then what does that mean about the rest of us?Also, it would SERIOUSLY piss off the Religious Right since Neanderthals have been extinct for far longer than the Earth has been in existence (apr 6,000 ys) it raises all sorts of questions about Bible accuracy.

I agree, which is why this could lead to some huge insights in psychology and neurology. Given that we're able to communicate with chimps and gorillas using sign language, I can't imagine we'd be unable to do the same with a much closer relative

Talk about seeing the inner beauty!Michael: Wow! Gabe, check her out!
Gabriel: Who?
Michael: Her?
Gabriel: The mammoth?
Michael: No, next to the mammoth. The short, thick one with the huge nose and no chin.
Gabriel: The one with the brow ridges that make her eyes look like pits?
Michael: Yeah.
Gabriel: And the elongate head?
Michael: Yeah.
Gabriel: And the thick trunk?
Michael: Oh, yeah.
Gabriel: Yeah, she IS hot. Say, you wanna go have sex with her?
Michael: We're angels, we don't have genitalia.
Gabriel: Right. Damn.