Political Crossfire Forums

http://www.news.com.au/news/i-can-creat ... 6558490061

proff george church of harvard says he can clone a neanderthal if he finds a willing "adventurous" surrogate mother

lets say he can

the neanderthal is not a human, it's another species, but it's likely sentient. recreating one member of an extinct sentient species for study, why? in the article it's apparently to advance his theory that they are more intelligent than humans, which, considering the genetic victor, i doubt is the case. and it's not like we get to observe him in his "natural environment". he would have to be raised by humans. we don't know what his mental capacities and shortcomings are. and if he overcomes his childhood and is a thinking young man, how depressing would it be to be the only member of your species in the entire planet with just a few artifacts to speak to their prior existence. he'll end up as some side show. the professor doesn't have enough to clone a female just one male. so he's possibly a genetic dead end.

resurrecting ancient animals is one thing, but a different, sentient species is quite another

and then of course there's the entire acting as god. it seriously would be breathing life into another species of sentient being

Too cruel.

yes, i do think it would be cruel to create this man. perhaps if you could clone a tribe (of varying genetics, not 12 of the same guy) it wouldn't be as cruel, but a single individual? that's horrible

Before they take another step they have to decide the legal status of the child. Will it be considered human and accorded all the rights that brings with it. Or will it be non human, treated then as an animal and suffer the circumstances of that existence.

it's something we have to come to grips with sooner or later anyway. genetic changes to humans to make them not quite human as well as sentient AI will some day become reality. i do not think animals have rights nor should they, but in this case if he was to clone a neanderthal it should be treated as an equal to humans, not as a lab rat.

Does the law denote a person, or a human? Human or not, this is certainly a person. Seems that the normal protections under the law would apply, and that the creator would have to accept custody.

The whole "acting like God" thing is completely immaterial except for as a religious angle. There is nothing wrong with creating sentient life, ask any parent. Merely existing isn't abuse. Violating the rights that go with personhood is where the line gets crossed.

i'm torn because this just strikes me as a "Why did we do it? Well, because we could." sort of thing.

people is just a group classification for something that has personhood and personhood, in pretty much every definition, minus someone being an asshole and trying to push a pro-life abortion argument, would define personhood with sentience.