As we know, ethics, and bioethics is a very fascinating field with complex explanation. They are many variables to be considered when trying to validate this ethical position.

How will this be accepted among my religion brethren? Considering the position of baptism among the Christian and that of jamiyatul ummal among the Muslim faithful. We there be any room to incorporate them as member of society?

Pragmatically it's alway useful to have different perspectives. What do you think?

Hey what do you think?

Bumb

vaxx:
As we know, ethics, and bioethics is a very fascinating field with complex explanation. They are many variables to be considered when trying to validate this ethical position.

How will this be accepted among my religion brethren? Considering the position of baptism among the Christian and that of jamiyatul ummal among the Muslim faithful. We there be any room to incorporate them as member of society?

Pragmatically it's alway useful to have different perspectives. What do you think?

Their descendants exists among us, every non-African is a descendant of the Neanderthal.

darkhorizon:


Their descendants exists among us, every non-African is a descendant of the Neanderthal.

Yes to some degree have enough present of DNA in them except sub Saharan African....

But Caucasoid race, particularly Northern Europeans, share the highest rating of Neanderthal DNA through genotype and phenotype.


Check this.......... picture and links below....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_human_admixture_with_modern_humans

vaxx:
Yes to some degree have enough present of DNA in them except sub Saharan African....

But Caucasoid race, particularly Northern Europeans, share the highest rating of Neanderthal DNA through genotype and phenotype.


Check this.......... picture and links below....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_human_admixture_with_modern_humans

Yeah cool, but why are you particular about their revival.

darkhorizon:


Yeah cool, but why are you particular about their revival.

lol......All what I know about them is pratically all what i have learnt in textbook, documentry and in some cases from enlightened individual..

I really want to know if all what i have learnt about them are really true and at the same time, will like to investigate more.

vaxx:
lol......All what I know about them is pratically all what i have learnt in textbook, documentry and in some cases from enlightened individual..

I really want to know if all what i have learnt about them are really true and at the same time, will like to investigate more.

They were primitive, had more affinity for violence and had higher chances of mental illness just like their descendants. Why would you want such people back?
They were recessive compared to modern human (100% homo sapiens).

darkhorizon:

They were primitive, had more affinity for violence and had higher chances of mental illness just like theirdescendants . Why would you want such people back?They were recessive compared to modern human (100% homo sapiens).

lol hope you are not a racist? Neanderthals were both social and sapient, which means that they almost certainly had culture, even if it was basic. Because of that, they would almost certainly be entitled to the same rights and privileges that humans enjoy.

vaxx:
lol hope you are not a racist? Neanderthals were both social and sapient, which means that they almost certainly had culture, even if it was basic. Because of that, they would almost certainly be entitled to the same rights and privileges that humans enjoy.

Depends on what you define as being racist. However, I am a Pan African

vaxx:
lol......All what I know about them is pratically all what i have learnt in textbook, documentry and in some cases from enlightened individual..

I really want to know if all what i have learnt about them are really true and at the same time, will like to investigate more.

What will be the point? A species you can put in a zoo and study? If a fully sapient Neanderthal is revived can you fathom the disadvantage such a species would have at this point in our evolutionary development? Your interest I think is not enough to necessitate their revival, not unless you will allow them not become as developed as you, rendering your interest in them devoid of those things that made you interested in the first place.

LordReed:


What will be the point? A species you can put in a zoo and study? If a fully sapient Neanderthal is revived can you fathom the disadvantage such a species would have at this point in our evolutionary development? Your interest I think is not enough to necessitate their revival, not unless you will allow them not become as developed as you, rendering your interest in them devoid of those things that made you interested in the first place.

Actually, apart from physically, they probably would be no different to humans today. If you send them to school, they'd learn what you know, and if dressed in a suit they'd look like modern humans, so what exactly would be the point?

budaatum:

Actually, apart from physically, they probably would be no different to humans today. If you send them to school, they'd learn what you know, and if dressed in a suit they'd look like modern humans, so what exactly would be the point?

That might not be immediately available to them going by where we were developmentally when they died out. They'll have a lot of catching up to do. May be in a lot fewer generations than we took but still they'll need so time, during which we'll have ensure they are not being taken advantage of like sentient idiot savants.

LordReed:


What will be the point? A species you can put in a zoo and study? If a fully sapient Neanderthal is revived can you fathom the disadvantage such a species would have at this point in our evolutionary development? Your interest I think is not enough to necessitate their revival, not unless you will allow them not become as developed as you, rendering your interest in them devoid of those things that made you interested in the first place.

so many reasons , medical research (at least to understand human genetics better) economic purpose ( replace man power ) experimental uses ( use them to test the latest drug or any scienctifc discovery that human are directly required) war purposes ( replaced human solders and use them instead) Etc..
.
I generally like to draw on common historical themes, or examples when answering these kinds of questions. But with this one, we obviously don't have an example to pull from. I'm going to give it a go anyway.

I guess we have to look at why this sub-species of humans was able to survive in this scenario that would be different from our timeline. I think the general consensus among anthropologists today is that they were out competed for resources by proper humans. They also bred with many groups of humans, which led to a more of a melding of the two groups, instead of an outright extinction.

So to have a full fledged group of Neanderthals reviving today must mean alot to us human in general, they will be more closer to us than chimpanzee. Infact i suspect that if they were revived in many , they will flee to somewhere like British island or antratical island due to their adaptation to cold where they could potentially avoid direct conflict/competition until a much later date

LordReed:


That might not be immediately available to them going by where we were developmentally when they died out. They'll have a lot of catching up to do. May be in a lot fewer generations than we took but still they'll need so time, during which we'll have ensure they are not being taken advantage of like sentient idiot savants.

Not available to them how, or why? It's not as if we could also recreate the environment they existed in too.

I reckon if you put them in New York they'd get the subway like anyone else once shown how. It would be like taking a person from a primitive environment and placing them in a modern one. If you send them to Harvard they'd become professors just like anyone else. They were after all a product of their environment and would continue to be so.

vaxx:
so many reasons , medical research (at least to understand human genetics better) economic purpose ( replace man power ) experimental uses ( use them to test the latest drug or any scienctifc discovery that human are directly required) war purposes ( replaced human solders and use them instead) Etc..

We human don't do this sort of stuff anymore, not even to rats and monkeys, so how the hell do you think we'd do it to our closer relatives? Or is it we humans that you propose to drag back to the dark ages?

vaxx:
so many reasons , medical research (at least to understand human genetics better) economic purpose ( replace man power ) experimental uses ( use them to test the latest drug or any scienctifc discovery that human are directly required) war purposes ( replaced human solders and use them instead) Etc..
.
I generally like to draw on common historical themes, or examples when answering these kinds of questions. But with this one, we obviously don't have an example to pull from. I'm going to give it a go anyway.

I guess we have to look at why this sub-species of humans was able to survive in this scenario that would be different from our timeline. I think the general consensus among anthropologists today is that they were out competed for resources by proper humans. They also bred with many groups of humans, which led to a more of a melding of the two groups, instead of an outright extinction.

So to have a full fledged group of Neanderthals reviving today must mean alot to us human in general, they will be more closer to us than chimpanzee. Infact i suspect that if they were revived in many , they will flee to somewhere like British island or antratical island due to their adaptation to cold where they could potentially avoid direct conflict/competition until a much later date

Basically raise a slave race. LoL. I don't even need to elaborate on that.

budaatum:

Not available to them how, or why? It's not as if we could also recreate the environment they existed in too.

I reckon if you put them in New York they'd get the subway like anyone else once shown how. It would be like taking a person from a primitive environment and placing them in a modern one. If you send them to Harvard they'd become professors just like anyone else. They were after all a product of their environment and would continue to be so.

Are you sure? We are talking of people whose brains are structurally different from ours who is to say how quickly they can grasp complex subjects given that when they died out we had barely began using tools. My biggest concern is that they'd be revived for a new slave race and held back developmental just to take advantage of them just like was done with Africans.

LordReed:


Basically raise a slave race. LoL. I don't even need to elaborate on that.

That is why the question is asked ? Do you think it will be ethical?

That is the whole purpose of this thread....

And let your ass licker knows that this thread had a tiitle and the discussion shouild be based on that. I will not reply red hearing.

LordReed don't you thinks having pets too can be classified as animal slavery?

LordReed:


Are you sure? We are talking of people whose brains are structurally different from ours who is to say how quickly they can grasp complex subjects given that when they died out we had barely began using tools. My biggest concern is that they'd be revived for a new slave race and held back developmental just to take advantage of them just like was done with Africans.

I guess I am of the opinion that the variation in brains would not be so significant as to stop them learning what we can. Take primates, for instance. We teach them language and they understand. Common dog is doing extremely well even. The one thing holding them back, in my opinion, is the inability to speak which is physical but which is not the case with neanderthals. If they could, learning and reasoning would be easy, I think.

vaxx:
That is why the question is asked ? Do you think it will be ethical?

That is the whole purpose of this thread....

And let your ass licker knows that this thread had a tiitle and the discussion shouild be based on that. I will not reply red hearing.

The question as framed in the op kinda means nothing as far as I am concerned. It is like asking me is it ethical to impregnate a woman. When you now attach purpose to such a question you can now evaluate the ethics of it. You indicated you want Neanderthals for a slave race, it goes without saying that that is a terrible thing to desire for sentient beings.

vaxx:
LordReed don't you thinks having pets too can be classified as animal slavery?

Yes it is animal slavery.

LordReed:


Are you sure? We are talking of people whose brains are structurally different from ours who is to say how quickly they can grasp complex subjects given that when they died out we had barely began using tools. My biggest concern is that they'd be revived for a new slave race and held back developmental just to take advantage of them just like was done with Africans.

Of course I'm not sure. I just think it. But I'm certain we would not make a slave race out of them. Unless it's a place like Nigeria that revives them. In the west, they'd be treated like lords, and if anyone tries to maltreat them we'd be on the streets shouting no way. We do it for rats and dogs and primates so we'd sure be doing it for neanderthals, unless in the process it's our brains that get put back to the dark ages. We just have advanced way past the acceptance of barbaric behaviour to that extent, I reckon, though not far enough. We do still use animals in research, note, but not as much as we used to.

LordReed:


Yes it is animal slavery.

My cats back home would not agree. The free range cats are always coming to steal their food!

budaatum:

I guess I am of the opinion that the variation in brains would not be so significant as to stop them learning what we can. Take primates, for instance. We teach them language and they understand. Common dog is doing extremely well even. The one thing holding them back, in my opinion, is the inability to speak which is physical but which is not the case with neanderthals. If they could, learning and reasoning would be easy, I think.

I don't doubt that but if they are instead assimilated as some kind of subjugate species and not given the chance to develop they'll remain disadvantaged.

LordReed:


The question as framed in the op kinda means nothing as far as I am concerned. It is like asking me is it ethical to impregnate a woman. When you now attach purpose to such a question you can now evaluate the ethics of it. You indicated you want Neanderthals for a slave race, it goes without saying that that is a terrible thing to desire for sentient beings.

That is why it is called a thread., you find nothingness in the question , You ask for the point that is fine ( we do not have the same understanding)I let you know why it will be fine to have them with us, you see it as slavery , good , I actually agree with you. Now the basis of the question become more meaniful to you than the initial stage when you find nothingness in it.

That is how disscussion should be. We are not mandated to understand each other at a go.

LordReed:


Yes it is animal slavery.

kudos....it shows you are abreast with what I am insuniating.


What if reviving them become a breakthrough to what We become more beneficial to humanity...

budaatum:

My cats back home would not agree. The free range cats are always coming to steal their food!

As long as you hold them in captivity they are slaves. Maybe when we can develop true communication with them we won't need to but as is, we enslave them for our own purposes.

In 100 or 200 years time, we may look back on the way we treated animals today as something like we today look back on the way our forefathers treated slaves - ""Richard Dawkins"" arguably the most famous atheist of 21st century......

LordReed:


I don't doubt that but if they are instead assimilated as some kind of subjugate species and not given the chance to develop they'll remain disadvantaged.

I think we would send them to Harvard as an experiment if just to see if they would develop. We humans are just way too curious not to, if nothing else.

A modern example would be refugees in the west. We don't subjugate them and not give them the chance to develop. We in fact assimilate them and give them the same opportunities we give the natives and sometimes even more, if you go by what some are saying in UK, Germany, Sweden, France etc.

LordReed:


As long as you hold them in captivity they are slaves. Maybe when we can develop true communication with them we won't need to but as is, we enslave them for our own purposes.

Like birds in a cage, or dogs in a flat on the third floor? I'd agree. My cats wouldn't have that though. They'd rip your eyes out if you try caging them. Ordinary stroke them and they'd be like, "are you mad!" I never seen cats like mine!