Philosophy Now Forum

Let's assume that a surviving population of Neanderthals are discovered in some remote area, say Siberia (in which case they would actually be Denisovans, who are known to have lived there, and are closely related to Neanderthals). How should we treat them?

At the very least, I think most people would agree that they should be left in peace, and protected, as much as possible, and allowed to live and hunt on the land they inhabit. After all, no one else has wanted it.

But should they be given full human rights under the law, and allowed to freely live among us?

Perhaps most people would say yes. Neanderthals are, after all, very close to modern humans, and were certainly human in their own right, albeit different. Could they think in the same way that we do, or talk? We just don't know, but obviously, if we found some, we would find out, and make our decision accordingly.

So how about if they weren't Neanderthals, but something more primitive? Where do we draw the line?

Perhaps we're lucky we don't have to worry about such issues, and that our ancestors killed (and probably ate) any that weren't done for with climate change and the end of the Ice Age.

It's worth pointing out though that this is not a totally fantastic scenario, and reports of Siberian "wildmen" have been fairly common in the past.

Neanderthals interbred with homo sapian sapians and 1 to 2 % of Euroasian DNA is Neanderthal. I think it would be very hard to not give them full rights as humans. And once found, more interbreeding would take place. They also were not so far behind Homo sapiens, if they were, in intelligence as once thought. They were probably a lot stronger physically.

Maia wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 8:17 pm What if Neanderthals had survived?

What are you talking about?

Not only did they survive, but many of them are posting comments on this very forum.

(Sorry, my inner-Neanderthalness couldn't resist grunting-out that lame joke. )
_______

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 10:13 pm Neanderthals interbred with homo sapian sapians and 1 to 2 % of Euroasian DNA is Neanderthal. I think it would be very hard to not give them full rights as humans. And once found, more interbreeding would take place. They also were not so far behind Homo sapiens, if they were, in intelligence as once thought. They were probably a lot stronger physically.

Yes, they are indeed our ancestors, at least in part.

It's difficult not to wonder how such liaisons between modern humans and Neanderthals took place. There's little evidence, as far as I know, of the two groups living together, or even in the same types of places. And given what we know, all too well, of human nature, it's not hard to imagine what they thought of each other.

seeds wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 10:17 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 8:17 pm What if Neanderthals had survived?

What are you talking about?

Not only did they survive, but many of them are posting comments on this very forum.

That's pretty much what I was about to say - they are infiltrating from some place called ILP!

..but anyway, our DNA shows our birds used to like shaggin the behemoths!

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 11:54 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 10:17 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 8:17 pm What if Neanderthals had survived?

What are you talking about?

Not only did they survive, but many of them are posting comments on this very forum.

That's pretty much what I was about to say - they are infiltrating from some place called ILP!

..but anyway, our DNA shows our birds used to like shaggin the behemoths!

Does the DNA evidence suggest the liaisons were mostly male Neanderthals and female modern humans, then? Using mitochondrial DNA, for example? I wasn't aware of that, but either way, I doubt there was much consent involved.

Maia wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 8:17 pm Let's assume that a surviving population of Neanderthals are discovered in some remote area, say Siberia (in which case they would actually be Denisovans, who are known to have lived there, and are closely related to Neanderthals). How should we treat them?

At the very least, I think most people would agree that they should be left in peace, and protected, as much as possible, and allowed to live and hunt on the land they inhabit. After all, no one else has wanted it.

But should they be given full human rights under the law, and allowed to freely live among us?

Perhaps most people would say yes. Neanderthals are, after all, very close to modern humans, and were certainly human in their own right, albeit different. Could they think in the same way that we do, or talk? We just don't know, but obviously, if we found some, we would find out, and make our decision accordingly.

So how about if they weren't Neanderthals, but something more primitive? Where do we draw the line?

Perhaps we're lucky we don't have to worry about such issues, and that our ancestors killed (and probably ate) any that weren't done for with climate change and the end of the Ice Age.

It's worth pointing out though that this is not a totally fantastic scenario, and reports of Siberian "wildmen" have been fairly common in the past.

We already do so for handycapped people, and not only that - we extend them more courtesy and leeway on being tactless and oblivious to laws, customs and cultural norms so there's legal precedent to treating any humanoid similarly.

The question isn't whether they should get rights - obviously they should. Heck - we extend rights and legal protection to pets and animals.

The question is whether they can bear the brunt of the responsibilities that come with those rights, or whether we would be setting them up for failure and ultimately robbing them of autonomy and freedom when the calls for "adult supervision" grow louder.

It seems unfair to expect them to adapt and integrate so rapidly. Even "normal" humans struggle with rapid change.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 7:50 am

Maia wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 8:17 pm Let's assume that a surviving population of Neanderthals are discovered in some remote area, say Siberia (in which case they would actually be Denisovans, who are known to have lived there, and are closely related to Neanderthals). How should we treat them?

At the very least, I think most people would agree that they should be left in peace, and protected, as much as possible, and allowed to live and hunt on the land they inhabit. After all, no one else has wanted it.

But should they be given full human rights under the law, and allowed to freely live among us?

Perhaps most people would say yes. Neanderthals are, after all, very close to modern humans, and were certainly human in their own right, albeit different. Could they think in the same way that we do, or talk? We just don't know, but obviously, if we found some, we would find out, and make our decision accordingly.

So how about if they weren't Neanderthals, but something more primitive? Where do we draw the line?

Perhaps we're lucky we don't have to worry about such issues, and that our ancestors killed (and probably ate) any that weren't done for with climate change and the end of the Ice Age.

It's worth pointing out though that this is not a totally fantastic scenario, and reports of Siberian "wildmen" have been fairly common in the past.

We already do so for mentally handycapped people, and not only that - we extend them more courtesy and leeway on being tactless and oblivious to laws, customs and cultural norms so there's legal precedent to treating any humanoid similarly.

The question isn't whether they should get rights - obviously they should. Heck - we extend rights and legal protection to pets and animals.

The question is whether they can bear the brunt of the responsibilities that come with those rights, or whether we would be setting them up for failure and ultimately robbing them of autonomy when the calls for "adult supervision" grow louder.

Yes, that's the crux of it. I don't think anyone would disagree that they should be accorded respect and legal protection, but when it comes to things like voting, and living in modern society, there may well be some issues.

I suppose ultimately we just don't know, because we don't know what Neanderthals were really like. They existed for many tens of thousands of years, far longer than modern humans have, but in all that time never developed anything resembling a settled society. Even their art is rudimentary, though they seem to have had some sort of religious belief, or at the very least, sometimes buried their own dead.

Maia wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 7:35 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 11:54 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 10:17 pm
What are you talking about?

Not only did they survive, but many of them are posting comments on this very forum.

That's pretty much what I was about to say - they are infiltrating from some place called ILP!

..but anyway, our DNA shows our birds used to like shaggin the behemoths!

Does the DNA evidence suggest the liaisons were mostly male Neanderthals and female modern humans, then? Using mitochondrial DNA, for example? I wasn't aware of that, but either way, I doubt there was much consent involved.

That's a good question. I based my statement simply on the current situation of women where I live tend to like big stupid 'hunks', rather than...well, short git me.

It was quite some time ago I saw a doco likely on utube- if you want to do a search re us sharing DNA.

Here's what ChatGPT had to say:-

User
Is there evidence of humans sharing DNA with Neanderthals?

ChatGPT

Yes, there is strong evidence that modern humans have inherited some of their DNA from Neanderthals through interbreeding. Neanderthals were a distinct group of ancient humans who lived in Eurasia until approximately 40,000 years ago.

The evidence for interbreeding comes from the analysis of ancient DNA extracted from Neanderthal remains as well as the genome sequencing of modern humans. In 2010, the Neanderthal genome was successfully sequenced, allowing for a comparison with the genomes of present-day humans.

The analysis revealed that individuals of non-African descent share approximately 1-2% of their DNA with Neanderthals. This genetic contribution is believed to have occurred when anatomically modern humans migrated out of Africa and encountered Neanderthals in Europe and Asia. The interbreeding likely took place between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago, and the genes inherited from Neanderthals have persisted in the human gene pool to this day.

Subsequent studies have confirmed and expanded upon these findings. The sequencing of additional ancient human genomes, including those of Denisovans (another ancient human group), has revealed that modern humans also carry traces of Denisovan DNA. There is evidence of interbreeding between modern humans and Denisovans, as well as instances where Neanderthals interbred with Denisovans. These findings highlight the complex genetic history of our species and our interactions with other human groups in the past.

Overall, the evidence for interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals is well-supported and has provided valuable insights into our evolutionary history.


User
Is there any evidence via mitochondrial DNA whether the breeding was statistically more via male Neanderthals having coitus with female humans?

ChatGPT

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is inherited maternally, meaning it is passed down from mothers to their offspring. It does not recombine with DNA from the father, and therefore, it provides information about maternal lineages only.

In the case of Neanderthal-human interbreeding, studies have found that the genetic contribution of Neanderthals to modern humans is present in nuclear DNA, which includes both paternal and maternal genetic material. The interbreeding would involve both male Neanderthals mating with female humans and female Neanderthals mating with male humans.

Since mtDNA does not provide a complete picture of the genetic exchange between Neanderthals and humans, it cannot be used alone to determine the patterns or proportions of interbreeding. The evidence for Neanderthal interbreeding with humans is based on comparisons of nuclear DNA sequences between modern humans and Neanderthals, rather than mtDNA.

However, it's worth noting that studies focusing on mtDNA have provided insights into the divergence and population history of Neanderthals and modern humans, but they do not specifically address the question of interbreeding rates or patterns.

Maia wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 8:17 pm Let's assume that a surviving population of Neanderthals are discovered in some remote area, say Siberia (in which case they would actually be Denisovans, who are known to have lived there, and are closely related to Neanderthals). How should we treat them?

At the very least, I think most people would agree that they should be left in peace, and protected, as much as possible, and allowed to live and hunt on the land they inhabit. After all, no one else has wanted it.

But should they be given full human rights under the law, and allowed to freely live among us?

This would be like saying, and asking;
I think most people would agree that giraffes should be left in peace, and protected, as much as possible, and allowed to live and hunt on the land they inhabit. But, should they be given full human rights to freely live among us?'

Maia wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 8:17 pm
Perhaps most people would say yes. Neanderthals are, after all, very close to modern humans, and were certainly human in their own right, albeit different. Could they think in the same way that we do, or talk? We just don't know, but obviously, if we found some, we would find out, and make our decision accordingly.

So how about if they weren't Neanderthals, but something more primitive? Where do we draw the line?

Perhaps we're lucky we don't have to worry about such issues, and that our ancestors killed (and probably ate) any that weren't done for with climate change and the end of the Ice Age.

It's worth pointing out though that this is not a totally fantastic scenario, and reports of Siberian "wildmen" have been fairly common in the past.

What is the 'this' word here even referring to, EXACTLY anyway? If 'it' is 'the scenario' you just provided, then there are groups of what 'you' would refer to as 'primitive' already living among 'you', human beings, 'today', in the days when this is being written.

However, what 'you' appear to be MISSING here is the Fact that the way 'you', adult human beings, ARE living, in these days when this is being written, IS Far more 'primitive' than ANY predecessors WERE ever living. NO one was MORE 'primitive' NOR MORE STUPID to POLLUTE their ONE and ONLY home like 'you', adult human beings, ARE DOING, now, when this is being written

seeds wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 10:17 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 8:17 pm What if Neanderthals had survived?

What are you talking about?

Not only did they survive, but many of them are posting comments on this very forum.

(Sorry, my inner-Neanderthalness couldn't resist grunting-out that lame joke. )
_______

AND, ANOTHER Truly NON INTELLIGENT WAY TO LIVE IS TO BELIEVE that those who have opposing views to mine are 'neanderthals'.

Maia wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 10:40 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 10:13 pm Neanderthals interbred with homo sapian sapians and 1 to 2 % of Euroasian DNA is Neanderthal. I think it would be very hard to not give them full rights as humans. And once found, more interbreeding would take place. They also were not so far behind Homo sapiens, if they were, in intelligence as once thought. They were probably a lot stronger physically.

Yes, they are indeed our ancestors, at least in part.

It's difficult not to wonder how such liaisons between modern humans and Neanderthals took place. There's little evidence, as far as I know, of the two groups living together, or even in the same types of places. And given what we know, all too well, of human nature, it's not hard to imagine what they thought of each other.

What do 'we', supposedly, KNOW of 'human nature'?

And,

Who and/or what does the 'we' word here refer to, EXACTLY?

Maia wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 7:35 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 11:54 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 10:17 pm
What are you talking about?

Not only did they survive, but many of them are posting comments on this very forum.

That's pretty much what I was about to say - they are infiltrating from some place called ILP!

..but anyway, our DNA shows our birds used to like shaggin the behemoths!

Does the DNA evidence suggest the liaisons were mostly male Neanderthals and female modern humans, then? Using mitochondrial DNA, for example? I wasn't aware of that, but either way, I doubt there was much consent involved.

This is a huge CLAIM to MAKE.

Maia wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 8:04 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 7:50 am

Maia wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 8:17 pm Let's assume that a surviving population of Neanderthals are discovered in some remote area, say Siberia (in which case they would actually be Denisovans, who are known to have lived there, and are closely related to Neanderthals). How should we treat them?

At the very least, I think most people would agree that they should be left in peace, and protected, as much as possible, and allowed to live and hunt on the land they inhabit. After all, no one else has wanted it.

But should they be given full human rights under the law, and allowed to freely live among us?

Perhaps most people would say yes. Neanderthals are, after all, very close to modern humans, and were certainly human in their own right, albeit different. Could they think in the same way that we do, or talk? We just don't know, but obviously, if we found some, we would find out, and make our decision accordingly.

So how about if they weren't Neanderthals, but something more primitive? Where do we draw the line?

Perhaps we're lucky we don't have to worry about such issues, and that our ancestors killed (and probably ate) any that weren't done for with climate change and the end of the Ice Age.

It's worth pointing out though that this is not a totally fantastic scenario, and reports of Siberian "wildmen" have been fairly common in the past.

We already do so for mentally handycapped people, and not only that - we extend them more courtesy and leeway on being tactless and oblivious to laws, customs and cultural norms so there's legal precedent to treating any humanoid similarly.

The question isn't whether they should get rights - obviously they should. Heck - we extend rights and legal protection to pets and animals.

The question is whether they can bear the brunt of the responsibilities that come with those rights, or whether we would be setting them up for failure and ultimately robbing them of autonomy when the calls for "adult supervision" grow louder.

Yes, that's the crux of it. I don't think anyone would disagree that they should be accorded respect and legal protection, but when it comes to things like voting, and living in modern society, there may well be some issues.

'They', i suspect, would NOT be stupid enough to even WANT to BEGIN to vote, especially considering the candidates, in that so-called 'modern society'.

In fact would 'they' even be stupid enough to even BEGIN to WANT to live in that so-called 'modern society', which is being REFERRENCED here?

Maia wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 8:04 am I suppose ultimately we just don't know, because we don't know what Neanderthals were really like. They existed for many tens of thousands of years, far longer than modern humans have,

How many years do you want to CLAIM here, so-called 'modern humans' have existed for?

Maia wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 8:04 am but in all that time never developed anything resembling a settled society.

And by all accounts the so- called 'settled society' is NOT working out to good AT ALL

Maybe because CHANGE is about the MOST Natural 'thing' there IS, and so 'trying to' FIGHT CHANGE, by and through 'settlement' IS JUST A Truly UNNATURAL 'thing' to do.

Being PREPARED FOR CHANGE, and PREPARED FOR VERY QUICK CHANGE, IS, literally, HOW and WHY species ADAPT. AND, those that ARE PREPARED FOR, and DO, CHANGE ARE the FITTEST, and WHO DO SURVIVE

Maia wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 8:04 am Even their art is rudimentary, though they seem to have had some sort of religious belief, or at the very least, sometimes buried their own dead.

Have you SEEN some of the so-called 'art' SHOWN and EXPRESSED, in the days when this is being written?

Is ALL of 'that' NIT rudimentary?

Age wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 9:56 am

Maia wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 8:17 pm Let's assume that a surviving population of Neanderthals are discovered in some remote area, say Siberia (in which case they would actually be Denisovans, who are known to have lived there, and are closely related to Neanderthals). How should we treat them?

At the very least, I think most people would agree that they should be left in peace, and protected, as much as possible, and allowed to live and hunt on the land they inhabit. After all, no one else has wanted it.

But should they be given full human rights under the law, and allowed to freely live among us?

This would be like saying, and asking;
I think most people would agree that giraffes should be left in peace, and protected, as much as possible, and allowed to live and hunt on the land they inhabit. But, should they be given full human rights to freely live among us?'

Maia wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 8:17 pm
Perhaps most people would say yes. Neanderthals are, after all, very close to modern humans, and were certainly human in their own right, albeit different. Could they think in the same way that we do, or talk? We just don't know, but obviously, if we found some, we would find out, and make our decision accordingly.

So how about if they weren't Neanderthals, but something more primitive? Where do we draw the line?

Perhaps we're lucky we don't have to worry about such issues, and that our ancestors killed (and probably ate) any that weren't done for with climate change and the end of the Ice Age.

It's worth pointing out though that this is not a totally fantastic scenario, and reports of Siberian "wildmen" have been fairly common in the past.

What is the 'this' word here even referring to, EXACTLY anyway? If 'it' is 'the scenario' you just provided, then there are groups of what 'you' would refer to as 'primitive' already living among 'you', human beings, 'today', in the days when this is being written.

However, what 'you' appear to be MISSING here is the Fact that the way 'you', adult human beings, ARE living, in these days when this is being written, IS Far more 'primitive' than ANY predecessors WERE ever living. NO one was MORE 'primitive' NOR MORE STUPID to POLLUTE their ONE and ONLY home like 'you', adult human beings, ARE DOING, now, when this is being written

Giraffes don't hunt.