Playing God with Neanderthals

The anomalies you site in humans are not intended. They happen. In most cases these are not known until after birth. Still, there are early tests that can be used to detect some such problems and people use them today to decide whether to abort or to carry. We can decide to end what we can strongly assume to be a torturous existence for this being if brought to term.Resurrecting Neanderthal, knowing the high probability of problems, physical and psychological, is akin to deliberately creating a torturous life. IMHO the immorality is plain.The problem I see is that if it can be done someone will want to do it. I wouldn't expect any attempt to be made soon since we know next to nothing about Neanderthal mothers and how compatible a modern human vessel might be. This is not just a genetic issue. The proteomics of the modern womb may not be suitable.

Since we have not done such a cloning the results are presently unknown. The high probability of problems is inferred and given in the article itself. No. We are not talking about resurrecting an entire population of some bygone species to be reintroduced into their natural environment, but of (assumed) sentient individuals far removed from the niche their bodies, their brains and their psyches evolved to inhabit. A niche that no longer exists. Fish out of water comes to mind.Until we know more, a hell of a lot more, about what we are contemplating here can anyone honestly believe the probability of inflicting great harm, egregiously tormenting a sentient being, is minimal?

I disagree. The difference being we have had an additional 50k years of evolution. If reproductive success is a sign of a species well suited to its environment, then I think Homo sapiens sapiens qualifies in this present environment. Some would say too well.A single Homo sapiens neanderthalensis resurrected from 50k years ago would be well out of its element. What we consider a bothersome though harmless rhinovirus is better adapted to today then this poor guy would be.

Social adaptation, certainly. Except for the psychological strain of learning the facts around ones existence, being a scientific experiment, the only one of your species in existence, etc., though maybe proper pshrynk counseling could help. I'm not well versed in pshrynk so I cannot address this area.I'm more concerned with the physical aspects. In 50k years our species has evolved physiology to deal with this environment. Imagine going back 50k years and asking your physiology to deal with all the foreign bugs and parasites it's never seen before. Or 50k years from now.Our resurrected friend's physiology is not prepared to fend off the massive assault of modern bugs since natural selection had no population in which to weed out the weakness. And our modern medicines are geared towards our evolved physiology. Can we even treat such an onslaught to keep the kid healthy other than total environmental isolation?Diet can be adjusted, eventually. But at what harm?We do not know what 50k years of physiological evolution has done. And I can't get over the fact that this experiment is being considered on a sentient human being.Goodwin be damned, I see specters of Mengele here, until we're damn sure of what we are doing.Edited by AZPaul3, : The usual speling stuf.

And we to them which is why they are just bothersome instead of fatal.

Sorry, Dr. A. I forgot the first part. As goes social structure you might be right. I'm not concerned with social structure.But consider. There are more of us. We live a hell of a lot healthier and longer. No major predators except ourselves. Hunting is a relatively safe drive to the market. Entertainment, rather than survival, is the main concern of the day. Etc.You may have philosophical objections to our present plight but physically, survival-wise, reproduction-wise, not a bad showing for an ape.Edited by AZPaul3, : Again with the speling!Edited by AZPaul3, : More error, what else?

Hey, Bluejay. Sort of. I see a sentient human being, even at 50k years old, as more than just a "something." Since this creature is a sentient human being, my opinion is that the bar of assurances against gross harm must be set at a higher level than for some chicken or some Australian marsupial.The reason is admittedly personal and subjective. That reason is because I am a sentient human being and I have seen human suffering. I can extrapolate that to myself. Empathy. Sympathy.I cannot sympathise to the same level with a chicken that is about to become my dinner or with a Taz with facial tumor disease because I do not recognize that same level of sentience.I cannot be comfortable that we know enough about genetics and proteomics to recreate the genome of a long gone sentient human, have it gestate in a foreign womb 50k years more advanced in physiology and carry it to term without any assurance of avoiding a gross error.I would expect that most such errors would lead to natural early termination. However, can we be assured that our fiddling with the genome has any kind of low probability of gross error if brought to term? Since we are speaking here of a human being I think we need that level of assurance before we proceed.The physiological environment into which we would bring this child is more foreign and potentially more lethal to him than the white man's diseases in the New World. That went over well, as I recall. And again, I do not have any assurances we know enough about the physiology of this long extinct species to assess any risk level at all let alone assume an "acceptable" one.My travels and experiences jade me to be sure. But to go forward with an experiment on a fellow human being with such a lack of knowledge on probable impact to quality of life is and should be abhorrent to us all.As for supermarkets, airplanes and TV, Dr. A and I were having a somewhat off-topic sidebar. Totally irrelevant to the OP.But, if you want in, I’ll play.We use our intellect to make supermarkets in the same way a chimp makes a probe for sticking into an ant mound. Our intellect is the evolutionary characteristic. With it we create the tools to enhance our survival. Supermarkets make it way easier to hunt than being in some small band of guys with pointy sticks. Supermarkets are not the environment which we could evolve into or from. They are the result of intellect used to enhance survival. So are modern medicine, government, airplanes, The Met and the Lake Pontratrane Causeway. And IMHO, we are indeed well adapted to supermarkets since we made them for our benefit and they work so well for us.But, this is sooo off-topic.Edited by AZPaul3, : syntax

I suppose we could try. We seem to have the technology to give it a shot.But with all the unknowns it seems a lot like playing god. Specifically the cruel and sadistic one. And since I'm not a believer playing that role just doesn't fit well. Got any other suggestions?

No doubt they could, if they could survive the physically foreign environment into which we drop them (think microbes). I have no concerns about cultural adaptation in any of its facets.

Hey y’all,I'm all for cloning a Neanderthal for all the science, known and unknown, this can teach us.However, concerning the morality of a Neanderthal cloning:We are not dealing here with a dodo or a platypus. Since I am a carnivore, not a Buddhist, I do not recognize any high level of sentience in these others. From what we know from the fossil record Neanderthal had some level of culture. Maybe less that us but considerably more than a herd of cows or dodos or platypussy. Our experience with other species indicates that culture is an artifact of intellect and sentience. To error on the side of caution I must assume N. had a level of sentience approaching, if not equal, to mine.Cultural adaptation is of no concern. Looking at various N. skulls most appear to have the proper embouchure to play a sax. Depending on inclination that may even be first chair. What we know of their physique indicates one would make a great offensive lineman in both the NCAA and later the NFL.So now the problem.There are viruses and bacteria around today that the 30k year old immune system of N. cannot have any defense against. We have the history of isolated populations coming into first contact with previously unknown pathogens. It ain't pretty. The birth mother can contribute antigens during gestation.This certainly happens in modern humans. We can assume, with some level of confidence, this was the case with N. mothers as well. They were, after all Homo sapiens.What we do not know:Can this occur across species?
Are the proteins able to breach the umbilical barrier within N.?
Are the antigens provided friend or foe in an N. physiology? Modern medicine can alleviate the condition.One could assume that at least some of our modern meds could be of help. But these meds were geared towards our modern physiology.What we do not know:Would modern antibiotics/antivirals work in an N. physiology?
Could they be teratogenic? Mutagenic? Carcinogenic? Hemorrhagic? There will always be a level of risk. It cannot be escaped.So true. But what level of risk is acceptable?In our modern species we suffer a birth defect rate at about 2-3%. In the cause of Science let's double, no, triple this rate. Round it up to an even 10%. We can debate whether this is acceptable in experimenting with a sentient human in some other thread. Infant mortality on this planet is around 5%. Lets triple this one as well.What level of defect do we expect here? Can we be assured our knowledge and processes would meet a 25% threshold of gross harm? Can anyone reasonably say our knowledge of N. physiology, immunology, endocrinology, anythingelseology can threshold at below 50%? How confident are we of a threshold below 80%?Right now we have no (%&@#^! idea. Well lets clone one and find out.There is a reason in the canons of medical ethics why we do initial test and develop of our medicines and techniques on mice and rabbits instead of on our children. The levels of risk, the levels of harm, are too great to experiment on sentient beings.Ask yourself this: for some unnecessary elective medical experiment what level of risk of gross harm are you willing to accept for your child?Is it moral to clone a Neanderthal?At our present level of knowledge the answer must be no.As our knowledge improves, at some point we could go for it. Juilliard could use a good jazz sax, in the off season when he's not playing right guard for the Cowboys.And, of course, Geico would have a field day.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.