Satan's Evil Twin Posted March 14, 2012 Author Share Posted March 14, 2012 If neanderthals are found to have bred with homo sapiens, they should be classifed back as homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Is it wrong to classify modern humans as homo sapiens sapiens caucasoid, h.s.s. mongoloid, h.s.s. negroid, h.s.s. australoid and h.s.s. capoid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Do they have parents? Do they have rights? Are they seen under the law as real people? Who is responsible for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 The Russian and Korean scientists are cloning a mammoth, would anyone have a moral issue with cloning an extinct human species? I sure as hell wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 I'm not an anthropologist, and don't have any vested interest in what they are called, or us humans for that matter. So long as it's accurate. Insofar as I'm aware, they are currently separate species as considered by anthropologists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 That was back before recent research has found them to have interbred. How about subsubspecies? I prefer to be scientifically consistent when applying taxonomic classification to humans as to every other lifeform, but somehow, dwelling on the differences between races is not politically correct, highly discouraged and socially unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted March 14, 2012 Author Share Posted March 14, 2012 It creates huge ethical problems. Beyond the legal issues, there's also the fact the science is nowhere near perfect. Even if you were able to find and extract the human DNA, which we can't, there's a very good chance of creating an imperfect clone that would be born with all sorts of difficiencies. The only problem is that these clones would be thinking rational humans...what do you do with them? Dispose of them like lab rats? Force them to live some kind of tortured existence? Even if you were able to perfect the process, the idea of purposely created less evolved humans is no different than purposely creating a mentally handicapped human embryo. Not to mention humans are social and self-aware beings. These cloned people would have none of their own kind and be aware that they were science experiments. And what exactly do you plan to do with them? Put them on display like a circus side show? Other than the fact it would be cool to look at these people in a zoo, what possible reason could there possibly be to experiment with human or close to human DNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 For the sake of argument, let's assume cloning technique works. If you think it's a major moral concern, then my answer is yes: genetically deficient clones can be disposed of like lab rats. In fact, I see no difference between a lab rat and this being we're talking about. The idea is entirely different because a created mentally handicapped is defective by design, while the extinct human species is ideal for its contemporary environment (barring cloning problems). The goal is to learn, and a cloned homo ____, even in a vegetative state could give us insight into our evolutionary history. I don't know why you bring up a circus side show. It's science, not entertainment. I don't know, I'm sure anthropologists could learn something from an extinct homo species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted March 14, 2012 Author Share Posted March 14, 2012 You really don't see the difference between disposing of an imperfect human you have created and a lab rat? There are no non-arbitrary ways to classify humans. Putting artificial distinctions between humans sets race relations and humanity back centuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobble Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Also, I wonder if the different physical traits of the races we have today are inherited from the various human subspecies that existed in their respective parts of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 No, as their purposes for existing are the same. I do struggle with the "experiments on a self aware being", part, but ultimately I am willing to look beyond that. However, I must say I haven't spent a lot of time on the topic, and am open to more information to form my opinion. Certainly, in the hands of ignorant people. As I said, I have no problem with non-arbitrary classification of humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted March 14, 2012 Author Share Posted March 14, 2012 Based on your logic, there should be no difference between eating and raising people for cattle and eating animals. The purpose is the same. Once again, there are no non-arbitrary ways to classify humans. Our genes exist along a spectrum and show up randomly all over the place. We have yet to find a living population of humans that comes anyhwere close to meeting the defintion of sub-species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Homo Sapiens radiated from Africa and changed due to differing environments and various adaptations. Don't think it's a result of thorough interbreeding. The differences observed today can probably be explained through natural selection and genetic linkage between closely associated traits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 If eating humans was not toxic and humans were cloned in a vegetative state for consumption, what problem would you have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Not really. Those ancient hominids were perfectly capable of breeding with us, so they were in fact the same species, just different subspecies, or race, to use a more politically correct term in applying to humans. Anyways, you don't see anything wrong with racial selection for this sort of thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted March 14, 2012 Author Share Posted March 14, 2012 I don't know about you, but cannibalism doesn't sit too well with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 And why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted March 14, 2012 Author Share Posted March 14, 2012 Should we also create unsentient children for the sexual gratification of pedophiles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lateralus Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Harvard is near there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 I'm not sure 60,000 years or so could produce that profound a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobble Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 I'm not sure 60,000 years or so could produce that profound a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.