This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Bringing Back Extinct Near-Human Species
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
ElhonnaDS
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/harvard-prof-neanderthal-clones-experts-doubt/story?id=18275611
In this article, they are discussing a recent claim by a Harvard geneticist that he could (but not that he would) use fragments of DNA from Neanderthal remains to clone a Neanderthal baby which could be born live to a surrogate human mother.
Now this is for the most part a purely theoretical discussion- there are a number of ethical, legal and practical concerns with this, which are outlined in the article, which makes the chances of this even being attempted- never mind successful- slim to none. But if in say 100 years, improvements in technology and a shift in the attitudes of the public and scientific communities about ethical uses of human DNA were to make this a reality, what do you think about this concept?
Would such a child be entitled to human rights? Would the qualify as a human at all? Do we give sanctity to life based on similar genetic code, or intelligence and self awareness?
Is there a value to restoring extinct species to existence? Does the fact that this would be an intelligent species (presumably) make it more or less valuable to restore their existence? Is it ethical to involve intelligent creatures in this kind of experiment if it is to save their species? Is it ethical to use human DNA, or near-human DNA in experiments in general? Why or why not?
Does creating children through cloning automatically mean they're being exploited for science? If they allowed cloning to allow parents to give birth to a genetic duplicate of a child they lost, to raise a new generation of children based on the genes of exceptional human beings, etc., would that be unethical?
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
Dolphins are more intelligent than apes and we don't give them human rights. Honestly it depends on how intelligent the child would be as to whether or not it should be given rights.
I think that birthing a child like that would be a disservice. It's almost like purposely creating a mentally handicapped child, because it would likely never be as intelligent as those around it, and given the unrefined nature of genetic cloning, it would probably live a short life riddled with health problems.
It might not be human, but it would be close enough that I think its overly cruel to bring it into the world as an experiment.
What would be unethical about using human DNA in experiments, though? I can't think of any reason why it would be inherently immoral, I can think of reasons why it could be used for immoral purposes, but not why using human DNA for experiments, in general, regardless of motivation or purpose, would be immoral.
Because cloning animals can cause all sorts of health problems and genetic defects, and some people believe it's cruel to do so to a higher life form. Some types of cloning are basically test tube incest.
There are also the philosophical and spiritual objections some people may raise to creating human life in a lab.
If it's sentient then it's a person, after all, despite not being a human.
Does that mean a squirrel is a person too?
Post by
gnomerdon
i for one support this. we can learn about our ancestors and we can all benefit as a species.
the only concern is people.
example 1: m ajority of people will discriminate them and treat them badly. they will retaliate, and it can can possibly lead too many bad things.
1. extermination of their race. people will oppose it and a civil war will happen if the worst happens
2. create enough of these intelligent beings, they revolt and replace us if make the wrong decisions
i support it if it's contained and monitored with a sample pool of 1-2. but if it goes past that, it can get pretty messy. but that would be wrong to say because their also beings, they shouldn't be contained and watched over like lab rats.
it will open doors to big and wide opportunities, but because of bad bad people like us, the worst can happen.
Would such a child be entitled to human rights?
yes, if it can rationalize more than a chimpanzee, communicate and speak like us. it should have automatic human rights. remember when blacks were compared to apes in the aryn olympics. same concept.
Would the qualify as a human at all?
yes, if it has human dna, it's considered human
Do we give sanctity to life based on similar genetic code, or intelligence and self awareness?
both. there are still tribes out there that do t hings that we consider barbaric or out of this world, yet we still think they are one of us.
Is there a value to restoring extinct species to existence?
tremondously. to see our ancestors or distant cousins is something i'm looking forward too. they wouldn't be too alarmed when they learn that it was us that wiped out their entire race. =/
Does the fact that this would be an intelligent species (presumably) make it more or less valuable to restore their existence?
all for science, im all in for it. why would they start with humans and neanthals first. they should resurrect the mammoth through an elephant first. they seem to be skipping too far and fast with this.
Is it ethical to involve intelligent creatures in this kind of experiment if it is to save their species?
if it is to bring back a species that we probably killed off / or natural predators, it's worth it. variation is beautiful.
Is it ethical to use human DNA, or near-human DNA in experiments in general? Why or why not?
we're the same all the other species. what makes us more superior than chickens? nothing. they have a heart and a goal, we have a heart and a goal. if anything, ours is more corrupt. we're one of the only species that hides our genitals because we're ashamed of it. where every other species is naked and unaware of it. what is the difference between a hen sitting on a clutch of eggs vs a woman who is pregnant? we'd obviously say the woman who is pregnant is more significant, but mother nature would probably say their both equal.
Does creating children through cloning automatically mean they're being exploited for science?
one thing i learnt from pokemon. it's not how or where you were born or what you were born as, it's how you live it. that's what matters.
If they allowed cloning to allow parents to give birth to a genetic duplicate of a child they lost, to raise a new generation of children based on the genes of exceptional human beings, etc., would that be unethical?
only unethical to the common christian or believer, or buddhist, or animalistic culture out there. for all of science and profit incentive with lot's of money, im all in favor of it. then i'm remembered of a scary movie...forgot the name of it, but it was about a dead boy who lived inside another boy. it's a 2000s movie.
my opinion is, if the person is dead and gone, let that being rest. start anew with a new set of genes.
imagine a 9 year old kid, who suffered from a sickness. the saddenned parents decide to have a complete exact copy. the baby grows up and dies from the same sickness at 9. there could have been a recessive gene that triggered it.
things like this will never pass imo. it feels dark, gray, and shrouded with bad karma...
Post by
gnomerdon
religion did all that it can to inspire us up to this point and i agree there were good things that came forth from it.
but now, just like how the greeks left their religions,
we are now slowly letting go of our religion..... whatever it was,
and moving to space
mainly the moon, yes i said it said. stop worrying about that religion stuff, focus on space. the united states of space. write this down. m-a-r-s.
Post by
MyTie
religion did all that it can to inspire us up to this point and i agree there were good things that came forth from it.
but now, just like how the greeks left their religions,
we are now slowly letting go of our religion..... whatever it was,
and moving to space
mainly the moon, yes i said it said. stop worrying about that religion stuff, focus on space. the united states of space. write this down. m-a-r-s.
Religion has done as much to stop space exploration as tacos have. I seriously don't understand the comparison, other than more attempts to contrast science and religion as mortal enemies. Can I pit what I dislike against science, and intimidate people into disowning it also? You know what I don't like? Anime. It's time for people to stop ignoring science, because they are too busy watching anime. It is time for society to let go of its anime, and instead make breakthroughs in medicine. Think of all we could have accomplished if anime hadn't stood in our way!
On a more serious note, I think space exploration is near the bottom of my list on "things humanity should focus on right now". I don't think we should abandon space exploration, but I think the realities of space exploration are a lot less like star trek, and a lot more like infinite miles of vacuum with the occasional ball of inhospitable elements, with the ultra rare and unlocated hospitable planet, all at the end of a very very long bill.
Imagine you are the leader of the largest country on Earth, and its economic stability will affect the entire world. You have a budget of 10 dollars (for argument sake), with an income of 5 dollars, and a bill of 40 dollars. You have an option of exploring space. The costs for that will be 7,000 dollars. I mean, it sounds great.... space, the final frontier, until we realize how danged unrealistic such an undertaking is at this juncture in time.
Now, let's contrast that to religion.
Currently, whether you agree with it or not, nearly all religious peoples are peaceful, co habitating with each other in love and mercy. Religious beliefs have been shown to have a positive correlative effect on public health, law, longevity, psychological stability, positive offspring development, and a litany of other beneficial social effects.
When you say to "let go of our religion" and then "focus on space", in effect, you are appealing to a popular idea, that is very trendy and vogue on both fronts. Down with religion? That's the growing chorus. Explore space? Who doesn't love science? But, if we could just drop the nativity briefly and examine the implications, and benefits of each, I'm actually appalled at the popularity of your opinions.
How could so many people arrive at this conclusion? I know it is fascinating, and there is likely some benefit of it, but realistically, what benefit is going to mars, at this point? Wouldn't our efforts be better spent on feeding the starving, cleaning the planet, conquering disease, technological innovation, etc? We go to Mars, and then what? Make the next 4 generations pay the bill?
Let's make a distinct effort, as individuals, to be less idealistic and more practical, shall we?
Post by
Gone
Facesmasher your post is making my head hurt... I think you may have read one too many scifi novels.
I am a person of faith, however my problem with human cloning isn't on any religious grounds. From what I understand the main reason that the church is against human cloning, but ok with animal cloning is that science creating a human life would deprive it of a soul. To me this is ridicules. There's an omnipotent God who created the universe, but people can what, trick him with a technicality? No, I don't buy that for a second.
My problem with cloning is that cloned animals are prone to all manner of birth defects, retardation, and usually live very short lives. While it might be shadey to do to an animal, doing to to a human being would be tremendously cruel. Cloning human organs is another matter.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
I meant sentient like a human. And how do we know that the child would be ill if we haven't even tried it? If the child is ill, then put it down, and try again, over and over till you get a healthy neanderthal child.
So you say the child should be given human rights, and then you suggest using it as a lab rat to just keep trying over and over again? No. Perfect the process on animals first, then maybe we can talk about cloning human, or near human, species.
I also don't think religious reasons should have any say in this, I don't see them as valid. And no, that last part isn't flame bait, I honestly don't believe that morals based on a book that we can't prove the legitimacy of should have any say in something like this.
Well disregarding something because a single person doesn't see it as valid is called a dictatorship, and that's not how we construct laws in a civilized society. The fact is there are a lot of religious people out there, and as long as the law is being proposed in a democratic society, they get a say in whether or not its passed. You may not like it, but those kind of laws are the ones that allow you a say in the laws that govern your society as well.
So yes maybe religion itself shouldn't have a say, but religious people certainly deserve one, regardless of what they base their decision off of.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
I mean if there's no other way, then make the clone, let it live it's life, if it get's some life-destroying illness that they can't cure, then put it down and try again till you get a child that doesn't get sick. I don't see the problem.
Thats where I would disagree. I think that deliberately bringing a child into the world that you know will suffer and die as an experiment is cruel. Like I said perfect it on animals first, then maybe move on to human and near human species. Also if your going to give it human rights, then "putting it down" when it gets sick is called murder.
No, my problem is not religious people in general having a say, it's when their arguments can be summed up as "the bible says it's wrong so therefore it's wrong and we shouldn't do it" that I think they're opinions should have no say.
First of all its not just Christians that have a problem with cloning on a spiritual basis. And it's never mentioned in the Bible, so idk what the point of bringing that up is.
But it so happens I agree with you that saying "We shouldn't do this because the Bible says not to" can hinder progress. The difference between our opinions here is that I believe even if a persons stance or beliefs are wrong, then they still have a right to them. If a person decides they're against cloning because they flipped a coin, or because the leprechaun on their cereal box told them its wrong, then they still get a vote, no matter how they came to this conclusion.
Religion doesn't dictate anything really, people do. Now if people use religion to come to a conclusion that they use to dictate something, then that's their choice, and the choice is all that matters, not how they came by it.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Sold- Just a question. If you think that is an appropriate action while viewing it as a child that has human rights, then do you think that a parent trying to have a child, if it comes out with a birth defect or an inherited disorder, has the right to "put the child down and try again"?
Post by
Gone
I'd also like to query as to the point of bringing back a species that nature, through evolution, deemed irreverent btw. At best it would be creating a cast of mentally inferior humans, doomed to live their entire lives as second class citizens.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
I'd also like to query as to the point of bringing back a species that nature, through evolution, deemed irreverent btw. At best it would be creating a cast of mentally inferior humans, doomed to live their entire lives as second class citizens.
Actually, since they coexisted with humans, their demise was artificial (a result of human tampering). Their demise was no more natural than that of the dodo. I'd also classify this argument as utilising the "naturalistic fallacy". Though I agree with the sentiment that humans should trend towards equality (for inferior, who is free?), I think restricting reproduction on that basis is too high a cost for human liberty.
Increasing human knowledge is the product of the environment, rather than selection (see Flynn effect). Neanderthals were most likely
capable of speech
, so there is a likely potential for learning. Dawkins certainly says there would be little difference between us and our relatively recent ancestors on an evolutionary timescale (tens of thousands of years). It seems Neanderthals may be among those ancestors.
Ed: Also, I find it amusing the guy arguing for objective standards of morality is proposing a textbook villain solution: "farm the babies, cull the weak ones!".
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
@Sold- Just a question. If you think that is an appropriate action while viewing it as a child that has human rights, then do you think that a parent trying to have a child, if it comes out with a birth defect or an inherited disorder, has the right to "put the child down and try again"?
Hey Sold,
Still waiting for your answer on this one.
Post by
Gone
Actually, since they coexisted with humans, their demise was artificial (a result of human tampering). Their demise was no more natural than that of the dodo. I'd also classify this argument as utilising the "naturalistic fallacy". Though I agree with the sentiment that humans should trend towards equality (for inferior, who is free?), I think restricting reproduction on that basis is too high a cost for human liberty.
Oh I wasn't aware of that actually. Still though, can we really say they would coexist with humans today? I'm sorry, a larger and more robust human with lesser intelligence, am I the only one seeing them being used for cheap labor?
Lol now that was a joke, and a bit of an extreme, but you see my point right? At the very best they would only ever be second class citizens. And should they really be more? I mean to use one example, should we give scholarships at schools to them based off of some affirmative action type of system with a lower standard of grading? Now that I think of it we might even need a whole different school system, if they are indeed even capable of education. Plus they would be consuming even more resources in an already overcrowded world. Plus there's still the ethical implications of a human woman carrying a non human child when they make clone #1. I don't necessarily have a problem with that in and of itself, but many would, and despite what
Joseph Mengele
Soldrethar says, everybody gets an opinion.
And I vehemently disagree that every opinion should be considered valid, when your argument can be summed up as "this book which may or may not be pure fiction told me it's wrong to do this so you shouldn't do this", then I think you're opinion should not be taken seriously. Provide a valid reason for you're stance, not the words of fiction, or because you "said so".
Your missing my point Sold. Nobody passes a law based on a book. What I'm saying is that every opinion is valid, and if somebody forms their opinion based on religious beliefs, then that's their right. Believe it or not, most religious folk are not the zombies you are making them out to be quoting a book and doing everything it says word for word. Most of them taking teachings they learned from said book or books, and incorporate them into their own system of morality, and there's nothing wrong with that.
The fact that everybody in our society gets a say is exactly what gives you the right to say "everybody who's opinion I disagree with shouldn't get a vote." That's not something I would ever agree with, but if enough people thought like that, then there's not much I could do about it. Fortunately the world is a bit more enlightened than that, and most people recognize the wisdom in allowing dissenting opinions a say in what laws are passed.
Post by
Gone
neanthathals would be exactly like us in terms of intellect and stronger. only difference is that we are physically more flexible and can throw things. they had their own groups, we had our own.
natural selection favored us for a reason, because we were forced to adapt, thanks to an elite desperate group that saved us all.
i possibly think there was a point of time where neanthathals were 80% and we were 20%. desperate for a solution, we surprisingly evolved with throwing spears from a distance and wiped them out.
just like how antibiotics are in their struggle to keep up with stronger viruses. try kill off all the flu viruses and some will evolve to counter the strongest antibiotic, and everyone gets wiped out when there's an epidemic.
i strongly disagree that they will be 2nd class citizens. :l
Neanderthal tools, art, and hunting habits never changed until the very end of their history, which was almost certainly through contact with Homosapiens. Neanderthals had bigger brains, but based on everything we were able to tell about them, they were not as intelligent as humans. Natural selection favored us because we were more intelligent and adapted, it had nothing to do with us being more flexible. Don't you think that as their numbers dwindled the same logic of desperation would have applied to them? We evolved over the course of our entire history, they only began to when being exposed to us.
And even if they were equally intelligent as us (all evidence to the contrary) you're a fool if you think they wouldn't be treated as second class citizens. We can barely get along with other races, you think bringing a new species into the equation and trying to saddle them with human rights wouldn't cause problems?
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.