DNA seems to be in the "hope" domain at the moment. One of the other articles noted that we've got DNA from older Neanderthals though so it's not completely implausible.
Reproductive cloning of humans seems to be widely regarded as wrong, the interest in these creatures-or-people is precisely because of their relatively close relationship to humans. On the other hand, perhaps the argument doesn't apply to a person who wouldn't exist at all, rather than might exist with a different genome, had you not taken steps to bring them into existence.
Their brain is substantially smaller than ours, which puts them further away; but there's also a mention of tools, though I'm not sure how we'd tell whether they made their own or acquired them from humans.
I'venot read the articles, but heard that there was evidence of small elephants on the island. Is it not possible that rather than them being "further away" they've actually devolved from a larger ancestor that we have in common. Actually I don't like the term devolved as really it's still evolution, but almost backwards into a niche. It's too late and I'm tired.
Regardless of the ethics, there's an important problem: placental mammals are notoriously fickle about the gestation environment. It's not enough simply to get a fertilised Homo Floresiensis egg; you also have to find a compatible surrogate mother.
And when we get to the point of being able to make a machine that operates as a surrogate mother for humans and/or similar creatures, the ethical argument's going to get really exciting.
The BBC article mentions "many archaic traits", which implies a relatively ancient common ancestor.
The article on Nature's web site (http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041025/full/4311029a.html) suggests occupancy back to at least 70K BP, and possibly back as far as 800K BP. 70K BP would put them in the area about the same time as the arrival in that region of the first modern humans; 800K BP comfortably before modern humans existed anywhere.
Homo erectus lived in that region much earlier than any of these dates; they might have been the ancestors of the new discoveries.
The article describes the hominid as having brains the size of a chimpanzee -- i.e. smaller than H. erectus, the most likely common ancestor. This points to devolution (oh dear, there must be a better word than that) to me.
There is also the suggestion that there might be some to be found in the far out caves of the region. If they were, there would be other ethical dilemmas. Should we study them, disrupting their way of life? If they are more intelligent than chimps, but less so than our species of human, would someone be tempted to get them working in lowly occupations (ie enslave them)?
Well, we have slightly lower skull capacity than some of our ancestors, I understand. I'm really wary of using language that imposes a direction on a natural process - at best we can say that they evolved under a different set of constraints than some of their ancestors.
I'm not sure where the line between domestication and enslavement lies, though I'd have thought these creatures would indeed be on the enslavement side, supposing there were any around today. "Similarity to humans" might be one way to tell, though it seems a bit wooly; "makes tools" seems like a better one.
Yeah, livredor tells me off for using teleological language. Still, if you look at something like flatworms which have become parasitic and lost most of their sense organs, the direction of their evolution does seem to be clearly retrograde. They've specialised, yes, but in a way that cuts off future potential.
As regards H. floresiensis, and neanderthal vs. modern brain size, I'd be interested to know just how much hysteresis there is in the system: whether selection pressure for a smaller brain in the presence also of selection pressure for intelligence could result in intelligence being kept, using a smaller and more efficient brain.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-27 12:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-27 02:42 pm (UTC)DNA seems to be in the "hope" domain at the moment. One of the other articles noted that we've got DNA from older Neanderthals though so it's not completely implausible.
Reproductive cloning of humans seems to be widely regarded as wrong, the interest in these creatures-or-people is precisely because of their relatively close relationship to humans. On the other hand, perhaps the argument doesn't apply to a person who wouldn't exist at all, rather than might exist with a different genome, had you not taken steps to bring them into existence.
Their brain is substantially smaller than ours, which puts them further away; but there's also a mention of tools, though I'm not sure how we'd tell whether they made their own or acquired them from humans.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-27 03:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-27 04:34 pm (UTC)And when we get to the point of being able to make a machine that operates as a surrogate mother for humans and/or similar creatures, the ethical argument's going to get really exciting.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-27 04:42 pm (UTC)The BBC article mentions "many archaic traits", which implies a relatively ancient common ancestor.
The article on Nature's web site (http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041025/full/4311029a.html) suggests occupancy back to at least 70K BP, and possibly back as far as 800K BP. 70K BP would put them in the area about the same time as the arrival in that region of the first modern humans; 800K BP comfortably before modern humans existed anywhere.
Homo erectus lived in that region much earlier than any of these dates; they might have been the ancestors of the new discoveries.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-28 12:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-28 05:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-28 01:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-29 04:07 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-29 04:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-29 04:44 am (UTC)As regards H. floresiensis, and neanderthal vs. modern brain size, I'd be interested to know just how much hysteresis there is in the system: whether selection pressure for a smaller brain in the presence also of selection pressure for intelligence could result in intelligence being kept, using a smaller and more efficient brain.