Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Gangale
During the past decade, there has been increasing discussion of the possibility of cloning Neanderthals and bringing that extinct race back to life. The reasons for carrying out such a project are manifold, but there are also certain caveats.
There is so much for us to learn from the Neanderthals. There are limits to what we can understand about them by having their genome in hand and nothing more, just as a blueprint tells us little about how a machine will operate over its lifecycle: we have to build it and run it to truly understand it. There is speculation that the Neanderthal’s immune system was different from ours; gene therapies derived from Neanderthal DNA might cure modern human diseases, although this is not a rationale for cloning fully-formed neo-Neanderthal individuals, as such research could theoretically be conducted at the cellular level. Cognitive science would have much to investigate in Neanderthals; how were their thought processes and learning processes different from ours, and what insights might we gain as to how to more effectively educate modern human children and adults? Were there intrinsic behavioral differences between Neanderthals and modern humans; did they love, hate, hope, and despair as we do; were they as innovative and as adventurous? For more than a century, science fiction has considered what it would be like for modern humans to encounter an intelligent extraterrestrial species. We have no idea; we have no basis for speculation. Encountering another intelligent terrestrial species might better prepare us for first contact with ET. At the very least, it would expand our understanding of our own humanity.
Questions have been raised as to what the legal status of neo-Neanderthals would be. Could they be considered laboratory animals or kept in zoos? Could they be enslaved? Speaking as a jurist, I would say no. The first neo-Neanderthals would be brought into this world by modern human females; there is no legal precedent for recognizing a woman’s issue as anything other than a person, and this would extend to neo-Neanderthals. It would require new law to deny neo-Neanderthals personhood and to instead recognize them as property, and although legal theory of the 19th century allowed some persons to be held as property, it has long since evolved beyond that, and a reversion to earlier theory is unlikely. The physical science is also on the side of recognizing neo-Neanderthals as persons. Although there is debate as to the precise taxonomy, whether they were Homo neanderthalis (a separate species from Homo sapiens) or Homo sapiens neanderthalis (a separate subspecies from Homo sapiens sapiens) would appear to be immaterial to their legal status; homo est persona. Whether a mature neo-Neanderthal would be found to be legally competent is a separate question, but presumably the existing standards for modern humans would apply. On the available evidence, there is no reason to believe that neo-Neanderthals would be less mentally-competent than modern humans, but in any event, a person must be judged as an individual, not as a member of a class.
Now to the caveats. First, since implantation of a cloned neo-Neanderthal embryo would be an elective procedure, the health of the mother must be the primary concern; this includes emotional health, and accordingly, there should be a reasonably high probability of carrying to term and delivering a healthy child. Second, the child should be reared as a child, not as a laboratory specimen, and the legal finding of personhood would support this; the established protocols for the scientific study of children would apply. Third, from the preceding point, given the importance of peer interaction to child development, it follows that several neo-Neanderthal children should be produced within a few years of each other so that they can mature together. Fourth, as they mature, reproductive health must be considered; could cloned neo-Neanderthals naturally produce healthy offspring, or would reproductive technologies be required to correct abnormalities until a population of sufficient genetic diversity developed? Fifth, the option should be provided for an expanding neo-Neanderthal population to develop higher levels of social organization distinct from those of modern humans, beginning with communities of their own on reserved land, and perhaps eventually national statehood and membership in the United Nations.
That the original Neanderthal culture is long gone is no argument against reviving the Neanderthal race; it is no more relevant than the fact that the Clovis point culture of modern humans is also long extinct. What matters is that neo-Neanderthals be accorded the liberty to develop a distinct culture going forward from the time of their revival, that they be accorded human dignity. Again, how we treat another terrestrial intelligence will in some measure inform us as to our dealings with intelligence elsewhere in the universe. Indeed, it is possible that a more muscular and sturdier-boned race might be better able to withstand the muscular atrophy and bone density loss of microgravity in outer space as well as maintain better health in the weaker gravity on the Moon and Mars. As H.G. Wells wrote of another intelligent race, “To them, and not to us, perhaps, is the future ordained.” Or, at least, we modern humans might profit from an infusion of Neanderthal genes as we venture far beyond Earth.
In any case, whatever it is feasible for humans to do, eventually humans will do, for that is human nature, so the question of whether humans should do a certain thing is far less relevant than the question of how humans should do the thing.
Many millennia in the past, we modern humans shared this planet with Neanderthals; a few decades in the future, we may be able to do so again. This prospect affords an opportunity to reflect on the quality of our stewardship of Earth’s environment during their long absence, as well as on our ability to peacefully accommodate the differences among members of our very own subspecies. Our obvious shortcomings in these regards should humble our pretensions to being the pinnacle of creation, and the return of the Neanderthals should exhort us to be better human beings, to care for our planet, and for each other.
My message to the neo-Neanderthals is: “Welcome back. Let us once again share this planet in peace, let us together explore our humanity, and let us also reach for the stars.”
No comments:
Post a Comment