Neanderthal rights?

Ronald Bailey looks at the ethical questions that will pop up when Neanderthal Man is cloned.

Once the Neanderthal genome is complete, could it then be used to clone an actual Neanderthal? Harvard University biologist George Church thinks so. He told The New York Times that a Neanderthal could be brought to life using present technology for about $30 million.

A good rule of thumb:  If something can be done, sooner or later, it will be done. Then what?

Will Neanderthals be considered human?

What rights would they have? One way to approach the question is to ask if Neanderthals would be able to make and keep moral commitments. One significant clue that they might have this ability is the fact their genomes have the same version of the FOXP2 gene that we do. Our variant of that gene is necessary for articulate speech. The human (both modern and Neanderthal) FOXP2 gene differs from that found in chimps and most other primates by two changes in its genetic sequence. The fact that Neanderthals carried the same version means that it is possible that they could talk and might have been able to make and keep promises. If Neanderthals had this ability it strongly suggests that they would merit the same moral consideration that we give to our fellow human beings. If they can speak, there's a good chance that they can also demand rights.

Archaeological evidence also indicates that Neanderthals behaved in ways similar to modern humans. They controlled fire, wore clothing, made and used tools, and buried their dead. In addition, they physically developed in much the same way as we do. Like modern humans, Neanderthal infants were born with relatively large brains and took a long time to mature into adults. Some researchers believe that modern humans and Neanderthals could interbreed. Does the future hold inter-species nuptials?

....

So what if we bring back Neanderthals and it turns out that their intellectual capacities are so dissimilar from ours that they cannot cope successfully with modern life? Should we control their fertility so that they go extinct again? This comes uncomfortably close to the eugenic arguments used to justify sterilizing people who were deemed mentally defective in the 20th century. Or perhaps Neanderthals could be placed in reservations where they would be allowed to develop without further interference from modern humans. Would this be akin to confining them to a zoo?

And indeed, if their intellectual capacities are that much lower than ours, would they become a slave class?  One of the justifications for slavery in the American South was that blacks were inferior and needed to be managed for their own good.  How much more tempting to make that case when it's actually true?

We may stand on principle and refuse to create an underclass, but I can imagine a rich dictator thinking the creation of a permanent slave class would be just the thing for his empire.

Anything that can be done will be done.

By someone.

Sea Kittens

Michelle Malkin has linked to a PETA campaign aimed at renaming fish "sea kittens".

Well, I like most fish I've had, including catfish.  Maybe young catfish would be called "river kittens"?

Anyway, for those who might want to try frying up some sea kittens, here's a recipe I use for tilapia.  (And it would probably work on catfish, too -- or any light fish.)

 

1 1/2 lb tilapia fillets

1/2    cup flour

2       tbsp white pepper

2       tbsp garlic powder

2       tbsp garam masala

1       tbsp salt

butter for frying

olive oil for frying

 

Melt the butter in a frying pan with some olive oil (helps keep the butter from burning).

Mix the flour and spices and pour into a shallow bowl or plate.

Dredge the fillets through the flour, coating both sides.

Place the fillets in the hot oil and fry on both sides, for a total of 10 minutes per inch of thickness.

Serve

 

This is great as is, or with a sauce.  The residual oil/butter mix in the frying pan can be mixed with some of the flour mix to make a good gravy.

 

Next week, we'll try something with shrimp, hereinafter referred to as "ocean puppies".

Animal Rights fanatics

(Hat tip: Captain's Quarters.)

The Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works held a hearing on October 26 of this year. One of the witnesses testifying was Jerry Vlasak, MD. His testimony gives fuel to the fires of those who believe the animal rights movement is an anti-human being movement.

It seems the transcripts of the testimony are rather hard to find. Blogger Brian O'Conner has archived copies of them in two parts: one dealing with bureaucratic issues, and the second deling more with the tactics and beliefs of the animal rigts movement.

O'Conner analyzes comments from the second portion, including this:

Dr. Vlasak. Non-human lives, non-human animal lives, are as precious as animal lives. At one time, racism and sexism and homophobism were prominent in our society. Today speciesism is prominent in our society. It is just as wrong as racism. [O'Conner's emphasis . . . ed] Senator Inhofe. So you do put them in the same category, the animals of non-human and human lives? Is that correct? Dr. Vlasak. They are morally equal.

Dr. Vlasak ... is merely affirming the underlying premise of the entire Animal Rights industry: that the life of an animal and that of a human are equally valuable, and that to discriminate on the basis of differences in species (i.e. to privilege "human persons" over "non-human persons" . . .) is as immoral and as unethical as to discriminate on the basis of race, age or sex.

(...Continued in full post...)

Senator Inhofe. One of the statements you made at the animal rights convention when you were defending assassinating people, murdering people, you said, let me put it up here to make sure I’m not misquoting you, “I don’t think you’d have to kill, assassinate too many. I think for five lives, ten lives, fifteen human lives, we could save a million, two million, or ten million non-human lives.’’ You’re advocating the murder of individuals, isn’t that correct? Dr. Vlasak. I made that statement, and I stand by that statement. That statement is made in the context that the struggle for animal liberation is no different than struggles for liberation elsewhere, whether the struggle for liberation in South Africa against the apartheid regime, whether the liberation against the communists, whether it was the liberation struggles in Algeria, Viet Nam or Iraq today, liberation struggles occasionally or usually, I should say, usually end up in violence. There is plenty of violence being used on the other side of the equation. These animals are being terrorized, murdered and killed by the millions every day. The animal rights movement has been notoriously non-violent up to this point.

Senator Inhofe. And so you call for the murders of researchers and human life? Dr. Vlasak. I said in that statement and I meant in that statement that people who are hurting animals and who will not stop when told to stop, one option would be to stop them using any means necessary and that was the context in which that statement was made. Senator Inhofe. Including murdering them? Dr. Vlasak. I said that would be a morally justifiable solution to the problem.

After a day of testimony, Senator Inhofe concludes there's no way to compromise with the animal rights movement. When one side values human life above animal life, and the other is perfectly willing to sacrifice N human lives in order to save at least N+1 animal lives, there's no middle ground.

Senator Inhofe is perfectly correct. The difference between his premise — that a human life is of greater worth than an animal life — and that of Dr. Vlasak — that the life of a human and an animal are equally valuable — precludes using the normal tools of negotiation and compromise to find common ground. I hope Senator Inhofe and Senator Lautenberg, particularly, understand that the premise Dr. Vlasak operates under is the premise underlying AR as a whole. Dr. Vlasak is simply much more candid than his more cautious brethren, who are reluctant to express themselves as clearly as Dr. Vlasak because they know it would mean the death of their movement.

Note: We need to distinguish between those who are legitimately concerned for animal welfare and want to prevent animal suffering, and the animal rights activist movement. You can love your pet and want to prevent animal suffering, without believing that humans are expendable in that pursuit.

The Science Nazi

Doc Nuke proposes a new office: the Science Nazi.

His job is to walk up to those who reject science and tell them, No Science For You!

...continued in full post...

One of the other reasons the Intelligent Design folks don’t want to mention the method for the intelligence is that then they’d be forced to reveal that its just Creationism promoted by their evangelical Christian backers. I guess they just feel that Kansas, with its lack of topography, will be more open to their attempts to drag education back into the dark ages because nothing opens the mind more than a Kansas landscape. This is why we need the Science Nazi. In a situation like this, he would walk up to the Kansas Board of Education and announce: NO SCIENCE FOR YOU! What’s that Mr. Board Member? You want to use your cell phone? Sorry that was only possible with the scientific discovery of radio waves. NO SCIENCE FOR YOU! What’s that Mr. Intelligent Design/Creationist? You want to drive your giant SUV? Sorry, gasoline is a fossil fuel from the days of the dinosaurs, which don’t exist in your Bible. Not to mention the refining process, and the workings of the internal combustion engine. NO SCIENCE FOR YOU! What’s that Mr. Concerned Parent? You don’t support gay marriage cause it’s “unnatural” since gays can’t breed, even though your own quadruplets couldn’t have been born without fertility drugs? NO SCIENCE FOR YOU! What’s that President Bush? You don’t support stem cell research and denounce global warming, yet you want to bomb places and send spaceships to Mars? Bombs and rocket fuel don’t just magically appear like the voices in your head that told you to be president. NO SCIENCE FOR YOU! These are just a few of the reasons why we need the Science Nazi. We need to remind people that they can’t have it both ways. They can’t have their 21st century technology, medicine and conveniences and still expect society to adhere to fairy tales from 2,000 years ago. If they want that kind of life, they can hang out with the Amish or set up a sanctuary cut off from the world like in The Village. If they are lucky and a divine source is watching out for them, maybe a bunch of them won’t drop dead from easily curable diseases.

Though we disagree on a few points, I admit it's tempting to tell certain people that if they don't believe in the results of science, they should not expect to benefit from them.

This includes, for the People who Eschew Testing on Animals, no vaccines. No drugs. No surgical techniques that were first tested on animals.

For the Intelligent Design-Intelligent Origin Theory (ID-IOT) crowd, no crops that have benefited from any sort of breeding techniques. Let them eat teosinite.

But there's a problem.

Those who oppose the mainstream scientific opinion will assure you that whatever idea they're opposing is not, in fact, required to come up with whatever goodie they may want to use.

Medical advances need not be tested on animals, since tissue cultures and computer models will suffice. (OK, maybe they will now, but just how confident are you in the accuracy of any computer-generated result?)

ID-IOTs will insist that you can hybridize, selectively breed, and genetically engineer without believing that every living thing traces back to one common ancestor.

If your perspective is suffiently myopic, you can ignore arbitrarily large amounts of background. Just as a person can be revolted by the hunter and ignore the fact that her steak used to be walking around on four legs, believers in alternatives to current science will disregard the ultimate source for all the advances they rely on in their work, or for life and health.

The only way to really prove the issue would be to divide society into enclaves, each hermetically sealed from the other, and let each progress using the methods it considers true and correct. Over the course of generations, one of two things would happen: Any given enclave would independently drift over to something indistinguishable from modern science, theories, methods, and all, or it would independently fall behind and the standard of living in that enclave would lag behind that in the others. (Indeed, it might decline, and you'd have a massive die-off. Think of it as evolution in action.)