User Tag List

View Poll Results: Would you spawn a neanderthal child?

Voters
23. You may not vote on this poll
  • I am male. Yes

    2 8.70%
  • I am female. Yes.

    4 17.39%
  • Other. Yes.

    1 4.35%
  • I am female. No.

    12 52.17%
  • I am Other. No.

    0 0%
  • I am male. No.

    4 17.39%
First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 56

  1. #11
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,524

    Default

    I was about to start a thread on this myself, albeit with a somewhat different focus, then saw this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    Not to mention human cloning is illegal, and so is cloning intended to create human-animal hybrids, so whether you consider neanderthols human or not, it would be very much against the law to create one.
    For now, and in the US at least. But I am more interested in what is worthwhile and even possible, than what is legal. Science does not operate by majority rule. I found the whole notion immediately fascinating. Yes, I would seriously consider participating personally in such an enterprise, were that necessary for it to happen. I would prefer to be less directly involved, however, the better to observe the results.

    In any event, we study humans all the time to gain knowledge that will help us help others better. The subjects of these studies do not live lives devoid of love, kindness, independence, or purpose outside of the experiments. It should be no different with a baby having Neanderthal genetic material.
    Last edited by Coriolis; 01-24-2013 at 12:12 AM. Reason: fixed typo
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  2. #12

    Default

    Surely they won't actually do this... right? RIGHT?
    "The purpose of life is to be defeated by greater and greater things." - Rainer Maria Rilke

  3. #13
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    Not to mention human cloning is illegal, and so is cloning intended to create human-animal hybrids, so whether you consider neanderthols human or not, it would be very much against the law to create one.
    AFAIK, they are human. They just had strengths that prevented them from being as adaptive as homo sapien. Right emphasis for their locale, but wrong one for the general direction the world would demand. If one grew up in our society, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't seem primitive or retarded (i.e. a "caveman").

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    Because I am on the journey of transcending human form, I voted Other. Yes.

  5. #15
    Senior Member pinkgraffiti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    748 sx/so
    Posts
    1,489

    Default

    how different are those things supposed to be? do they even have our AB0 type blood? i'm going to guess that there's gonna be a shitload of fetus incompatibility that will not allow the pregnancy to go forth. by the way, do you remember dolly? that was a really unlikely event, and if i remember correctly, the sheep died really fast (there was some problem with the telomeres, i think "it" had its mum's telomeres)....anyway, mammal cloning....yeah, the chances of success are REALLY really limited. like, it's just never going to happen, IMO.

  6. #16
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,524

    Default

    A large number of serious technical questions would need to be addressed for such an experiment to proceed. The OP, however, seemed to be asking not about the technical feasibility, but rather the willingness of individual members to participate. This assumes the technical issues are resolved. Moreover, it is probably hypothetical for most of us since by the time it were scientifically possible, we would be dead or (at least for women) beyond childbearing years.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  7. #17
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    AFAIK, they are human. They just had strengths that prevented them from being as adaptive as homo sapien. Right emphasis for their locale, but wrong one for the general direction the world would demand. If one grew up in our society, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't seem primitive or retarded (i.e. a "caveman").
    Neanderthals are humans in the same way that tigers are cats.

  8. #18
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Neanderthals are humans in the same way that tigers are cats.
    I don't know the exact differences with those cats. Neanderthal's aren't the brutes they are stereotyped as though. They were shorter than we are, for one. They didn't even grunt apparently. Evidence suggests the larynx was only capable of a few syllables and probably made a "nasal" sound. The lack of vocal complexity is also a possible reason why they lost the "arms race" with homo sapien. They might have not been able to communicate many complex ideas to pass off to a younger generation. Homo sapiens however kept improving and refining. In addition to that, they adapted so "well" to their conditions and hunting methods that they didn't have much of a need to evolve. What strengths they had became a weakness. Tigers seem a lot more resilient. They've adapted everywhere from Siberia to India. More than some other big cats (like Lions).

  9. #19
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I don't know the exact differences with those cats. Neanderthal's aren't the brutes they are stereotyped as though. They were shorter than we are, for one. They didn't even grunt apparently. Evidence suggests the larynx was only capable of a few syllables and probably made a "nasal" sound. The lack of vocal complexity is also a possible reason why they lost the "arms race" with homo sapien. They might have not been able to communicate many complex ideas to pass off to a younger generation. Homo sapiens however kept improving and refining. In addition to that, they adapted so "well" to their conditions and hunting methods that they didn't have much of a need to evolve. What strengths they had became a weakness. Tigers seem a lot more resilient. They've adapted everywhere from Siberia to India. More than some other big cats (like Lions).
    Well yes.

    What I meant is that they are human simply by being a member of the genus homo. Sapiens is a species of homo. Sapiens is but one type of human (currently the only type still alive) Just like tigris is only one type of Panthera.

    How they acted and how they would have survived or not survived in modern times doesn't change that.

  10. #20
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Well yes.

    What I meant is that they are human simply by being a member of the genus homo. Sapiens is a species of homo. Sapiens is but one type of human (currently the only type still alive) Just like tigris is only one type of Panthera.

    How they acted and how they would have survived or not survived in modern times doesn't change that.
    That's cool. I'm not trying to say they're exactly human on some technical level. It just seemed like the tone of this thread in some places thought of a neanderthal as an "it", a thing, or a live one would be like dealing with a beast or something. They would be more similar to people than chimps (the vocal disadvantage, I guess, would be similar to chimps).

Similar Threads

  1. what core subjecs would you have in school?
    By Zergling in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-23-2016, 09:43 PM
  2. Would you have been a Nazi
    By INA in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 05-21-2009, 05:14 PM
  3. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 09-13-2008, 10:00 AM
  4. Pregnancy Art --would you/have you?
    By iwakar in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-10-2008, 09:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO