Playing God with Neanderthals

Hey Nuggin.I don't see an issue either. I think this experiment would into the "meh" category as far as historicity of medical experimentation goes. The moral argument, IMO (aside from the "playing God" objection) is a non issue. C'mon. Tuskegee, anyone?Personally, I think the more of these guys we have around, the better: Have a good one.

Hey AZPaul3. How do you know the "high" probability of these problems? Can you point me toward some research which backs up this claim?There may have been multiple reasons (physical, environmental, etc) which allowed H. Sapiens to evolve and flourish as opposed to the Neantherthals. However, as far as I've been able to ascertain, one of those reasons may have been a violent genocidal act or acts perpetrated by early humans.If that's the case, does it change your views of whether or not it would be immoral to "resurrect" them?

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Hey JUC. Easier, yes. But more appropriate?I think if we were to consider "manufacturing" what I see as factories for making organs, disease cures, etc, that obviously more moral objection would ensue if we were to use HSS vs neanderthal clones (or hybrids, etc). For example, think of the uproar if Phase 1 clinical trials on up-and-coming drugs were performed on unknowing humans vs. animals such as monkeys.Personally, I think we could learn a lot from an experiment such as this. But I'd draw the line at resurrecting an ancient species for no other reason than to use them as organ factories.

Hey Bluejay. Yeah, my "Über Clone 2000" kit'll stay on the shelf as well. I can see why the religious right may have a problem with this. Hell, look at the outrage from Dolly the sheep. No being (anthropomorphisms aside) should play God, except for God, they say. All the creation that needed to occur happened either 6ky ago, or ~200ky ago, so don't mess with the mix. But who's to say that this is unacceptible, biblically speaking? Did god explicitly tell somebody that modern-day humans should not dabble in genetics with regard to creating new life? Maybe god actually wants this. Luckily I don't have these extra added qualms to interfere with whether or not I think this should be attempted. But I do agree with you, in keeping with this being a thought experiment, that I don't know what the big fuss is. Call me immoral, but I think what could be gained or accomplished would greatly outweigh most musings on whether or not it's the right thing to do. No offense, but do you honestly believe that this most amazing specimen(s) would or could avoid this? Not to demonize science (creationists do enough of that by themselves) but how many times in history can you recall something which has resulted in great strides in this or that field of study, but which came about using questionable means, morally speaking. I can think of more than a few right off the top of my head. I'm not saying that this is acceptible, but that good things eventually came of them. So it may be in an experiment involving a long-dead species: I can just about guarantee that we'd have "secret" labs engineering everything from replacement organs to super-soldiers. Or trying to, at least. Do I think this would be wrong? It's a slippery slope, I know, but even considering the possibility of the above, I'd still give it a go. But to discount the likelihood that this type of "lab-rat" experimentation would occur belies a measure of naïveté I don't think you intended to convey.And lest you think I'm some conspiracy nut, really, I'm just thinking out loud. But for all you who are conspiracy nuts, how do you really know that these experiments aren't already happening as we speak (type)? Have a good one. Edited by Apothecus, : No reason given.

Thanks, Bluejay. Absolutely not. In whole, I was commenting on what seemed to be your view that JUC shouldn't just assume "poking and prodding and fencing in" could be a possible result. Yes, I agree we shouldn't just assume anything in particular, but wouldn't this include not assuming there would be no poking and prodding, etc? My point was that indeed, this is a distinct possibility. Is it your view that no experimentation of this type could ever occur? Again, not a thing. Like I said before, we all know some pretty heinous things have happened in the name of science for as long as science has existed. That said, much valid and useful information has been gleaned from what one could call "questionable" experimentation. So do I think restriction or outright elimination of Neanderthal cloning would stop such activities? Of course not. Do you contend otherwise?But I could be missing your point. Edited by Apothecus, : Added last question

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Hi again, Bluejay. Thanks for (mostly) clearing that up. Looking back, I can see that you tried to present a "glass half full" scenario instead of what JUC was contending would happen. But in doing so, I still think you came across as the ultra-optimist ... ... and that you professed the experimentation would be a picnic for all involved. I was operating from more of a realist's standpoint, and I guess I didn't get your meaning. But thanks for the reply.Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964